1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the “Therefore,” in the 5th judgment, changed to the “before October 5, 2015, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits for the injury and disease of this case.”

In the case of Part 7 of the 8th decision of the first instance, the following shall be added:

【Defendant, even if there was an objective obstacle to the Plaintiff’s exercise of right to disability benefit

Even if the previous provisions of this case are not externally binding, and in the case of noise-related hearing, it is possible to exercise the right after the Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7374 Decided September 4, 2014, which stated that the extinctive prescription will run from the time when the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, which was the same as that of other superior branches, was rendered. However, if the right was exercised within a considerable period of time to expect the exercise of right thereafter, the claim for the completion of extinctive prescription cannot be allowed as an abuse of right against the principle of trust and good faith. However, barring any special circumstance, the "reasonable period" of the above exercise of right should be limited to the short period (six months from the time when the cause of suspension is terminated) equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act. Thus, the plaintiff claimed disability benefits only on October 5, 2015, which was about one year and one month after the decision was rendered by the above Supreme Court, the defendant's claim for the completion of the extinctive prescription

However, considering the circumstances that were deleted on March 28, 2016, which were after the Supreme Court’s ruling was rendered, it can be deemed that the said previous provision was able to exercise rights by removing de facto disability when the said Supreme Court’s ruling was rendered.