1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2018 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 15, 1962 to December 15, 1980, the Plaintiff (B) served in the Korea Coal Corporation CY for about 18 years and one month from the date of November 15, 1962 to December 15, 1980 as coal mountain.

B. On September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant after the disability diagnosis by the D Hospital located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the "Magneary Espathic Espathic Espathic Espathic Espath

C. On May 28, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff according to the results of deliberation by the Integrated Review Committee with the Seoul Regional Headquarters, stating that “the causal relationship between the infertility and the noise is difficult to be recognized.”

On August 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for review in accordance with the deliberation by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, stating that “it is difficult to recognize causation between the Plaintiff’s previous noise workplace work force and the present state of clean power.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was exposed to more than 85dB noise over 18 years, while serving as coal in the Korea Coal Corporation C Mining Center, and the occurrence of noise-related difficulties.

Even if the plaintiff's difficult hearing is deemed to be mixed with the noise in distress and the elderly in distress, it can be deemed that the elderly in distress due to the noise in distress led to the progress of the natural progress and led to the present state of distress. Therefore, a proximate causal relationship between the plaintiff's difficult hearing and the noise in distress is recognized.

Nevertheless, the defendant made the disposition of this case by deeming that there is no proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's poor office and the noise business, which is unlawful, so it should be revoked.

(b)a fact of recognition 1.