1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on August 28, 2014 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 20, 2013 to May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the noise occurred due to exposure to noise in the course of performing duties, such as starting cancer, charging medicine, blasting, etc. (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits from the Defendant.

B. On August 28, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to pay disability benefits on August 28, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of “work experience of not less than 85dB engaged in not less than three years in noise exposure work.”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(C) The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review and reexamination, but all of which were dismissed. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Article 34(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and attached Table 3 of the Plaintiff’s assertion that “explosive noise of not less than 85dB for not less than three years” is not absolute standard, but can be acknowledged as a disease on duty if it can be inferred that the injury or disease in this case was caused by exposure to noise during the course of performing duties or at least one cause for promoting the occurrence of the injury, even if the above standard is not satisfied.

The plaintiff has been exposed to considerable noise before and after 85dB while working in the blasting site in a tunnel for about 30 years from 1983 to 30 years, and due to such noise exposure, he was diagnosed as a noise-related difficult hearing on November 17, 2009, which was in the process of the tunnel construction, and was diagnosed as a noise-related difficult hearing thereafter.

Therefore, the plaintiff continued to be exposed to a high level of noise at the workplace for 30 years, and the disease of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) fact of recognition (1);