1. On December 20, 2016, the Defendant’s decision to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. The reasons for the determination of the disability benefit site level ① The Plaintiff (B male) stated that the Plaintiff was driving the engine car at the Korea Coal Corporation CY for the period of 23 years from October 1, 1969 to December 31, 1992, when he was under the age of 53 from the date of December 31, 1992, that “the Plaintiff was driving the engine car on the ground that he was making the engine car while driving the engine car at around April 8, 2016 at the time of a disaster-related response (Evidence No. 9).” However, there was no objective data that the Plaintiff was in charge of other types of work than the engine car driver.

On January 22, 2016, when he/she was working as a person, he/she was diagnosed as “the suspicion of both sensitiveal chronological chronological chronological chronology and noise chronology” (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On February 23, 2016, he/she applied for the payment of disability benefits to the Defendant.

② On December 20, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the disability benefit site level (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s distressed office is “satisfying short of the standard” as a result of the deliberation by the Integrated Review Committee of the Daegu Regional Headquarters, which reads “Issatisfy due to dysatch infection and the left-hand senior citizens’ distress.”

③ On October 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection. The Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant injury or disease constitutes an occupational disease, and it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s request for review based on the review that it is difficult for the Defendant to request a review to the Daegu Regional Headquarters integrated Review Board to recognize as a noise or injury.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion ① approximately 23 years.