1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) diagnosed the two sides of each of the instant injury and sought disability benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant, upon receiving the diagnosis of “the two sides of each of the instant injury and disease; (b) the NFE’s NFE and EF (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”); and (c) claimed the Defendant for disability benefits.

B. On March 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a land-based disposition on the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “No evidence exists to verify whether the Plaintiff is engaged in any work process specifically, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the office due to the result of deliberation by the Disability Determination Committee that there is insufficient reason to recognize a causal relationship with the office in light of the age at the time of the examination of Cheong-domination and the period of suspension of noise exposure.”

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the request for review was dismissed on August 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was exposed to noise while working in C Mining Station, etc. for about 19 years, and there was no other disease that may cause the Plaintiff to have difficulty in hearing; and (b) the Plaintiff’s Cheong power loss in accordance with the criteria for recognition of noise in accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; and (c) the Plaintiff’s Cheong power loss in accordance with the National Health Nutrition Survey conducted above the average of the public aged 70 years or older according to the National Health Nutrition Act; and (d) the instant medical disease was caused by noise or the Plaintiff’s Matrine’s Datrine

B. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff’s noise exposure experience (D students) from September 1, 1963 to July 31, 1972, and from C Mining Center from September 25, 1974 to October 25, 1984, respectively.