1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a part of judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

In addition, the examination records and opinions of the industrial accident special patient (G hospital) requested by the defendant are diagnosed as the symptoms and characteristics of the typical noise risk office.

또한, 원고의 경우 ① 소음성 난청 인정기준에 부합하는 소음 노출 경력이 3년 이상이고, 한 귀의 청력 손실이 40dB 이상이라는 기준을 충족하고 있는 점, ② 피고가 의뢰한 특진의가 저음역보다는 고음역에서 청력 손실이 많고, 4,000㎐에서 최대치를 보이는 소음성 난청의 전형적인 검사 결과에 근거하여 소음에 의한 감각신경성 난청으로 판단하고 있는 점 등을 종합적으로 볼 때 원고의 양측 귀 청력 손실과 소음 작업장에서의 업무 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다.

Judgment

First of all, “The test records and opinions of the occupational accident special medical personnel (G hospital) at Defendant’s request” appears to refer to the special medical opinion No. 4 (Evidence No. 4) (Evidence No. 4) (Evidence No. 4) (Evidence No. 4). However, the evidence No. 4 (Evidence No. 4) appears to be well copied, and the above special medical opinion No. 4 was issued to the Plaintiff on July 13, 2016 by the head of G Hospital, and the parts of the injury and disease were indicated as “native ear,” and the name of the injury and disease was indicated as “hynacle,” and there is no characteristic of “the diagnosis and opinion” in the column “the person in charge and opinion” in accordance with the calculation of the remaining 71 years of age and 6 minutes of age and 71, the left 53.3dB, and the left 120dB on the right side of the Cheongsung reaction test.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

This Court.