1. The Defendant’s disposition of paying disability benefits to the Plaintiff on November 16, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 6, 1976 to October 20, 1984, the Plaintiff worked as mining source and quarrying workers for about eight years at Honamnam District Development Co., Ltd.

B. On April 23, 2001, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “psychological disability” on the ground that there was no abnormal symnasium on each side of the ethic tests in the ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic

C. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis from the Egyptian Egyptism, both sides, and the Noise and Vibration Agency (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), and filed a claim for disability benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant on August 28, 2015.

On November 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s position at the time of the Plaintiff’s employment constitutes a case where the Plaintiff had been engaged in a place of work exposed to not less than 85 d b noise in succession, which is the criteria for recognition of noise noise hazards, for not less than three years, and that the Plaintiff’s workplace was over three years from October 20, 1984, and April 23, 2001, respectively, on the ground that the period of extinctive prescription has expired since the date of the Plaintiff’s departure from the place of work.”

E. On June 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant could be presumed to have been exposed to noise meeting the criteria for recognition of occupational diseases, considering the Plaintiff’s work performance. However, the Plaintiff filed a request for disability benefits after the lapse of at least 14 years from April 23, 2001, and thus, dismissed the said request for examination on the ground that the extinctive prescription expired.

F. There is no dispute as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes a case where the Plaintiff had been engaged in a place of work exposed to not less than 85 db noise at the time of his/her employment for not less than three years.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, and arguments.