1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 5, 1978 to September 18, 2009, the Plaintiff (B) served as the digging ray in the Korea Coal Corporation as the digging ray. On November 18, 2009, the C Hospital diagnosed “halopic Distress Distress” and claimed disability benefits from the Defendant on January 8, 2010, and was determined by the Defendant on January 11, 2010.

B. Thereafter, on October 26, 2017, the Plaintiff diagnosed “Woochine Danenene Danenene,” both sides of the noise noise state (hereinafter “the instant injury state”), and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.

C. On December 13, 2018, the Defendant issued a disability benefit payment disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was paid disability benefit under class 5 of disability status No. 11 to the right-hand side of January 8, 2010 after the Plaintiff retired from the noise workplace on September 18, 2009, and the left-hand 46dB on January 8, 2010, and after reviewing the second diagnosis, special diagnosis, and medical advice on October 26, 2017, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff’s minimum hearing capacity was higher than the right-hand 59DB and the left-hand 61dB at the first diagnosis, but it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff’s business relation with the aggravated disability status was not recognized since the work experience at a noise workplace meeting the noise risk recognition criteria after the first diagnosis.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was conducted from around 1978 to around 2009 by performing the work of coal and digging, etc., and after receiving a disability grade decision on January 8, 2010, the state became more serious and now, and the disease of this case also should be deemed to be the result of the elderly's suffering from noise caused by the work or the result of the elderly's suffering from the work. However, the defendant's disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.