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 October 19, 1980 to February 28, 1986, the Plaintiff (B) served as the first cancer manipulation worker in the C Company from October 19 to February 28, 1986.

B. The plaintiff is the above A.

As described in the port of entry, the Defendant filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant by asserting that the noise has continuously been exposed to noise while working in the mine, and that the defect occurred both ear. However, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on December 31, 2015 on the ground that “it is impossible to recognize that the Plaintiff had a history of working for at least 85dB noise at a noise-emitting workplace continuously for at least three years.”

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Defendant. The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on April 7, 2016 on the ground that “The Plaintiff is deemed to have worked for more than three years at a noise workplace of not less than 85dB, but the Plaintiff’s symptoms at home are deemed to have come to a age increase rather than a noise.”

The plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was continuously exposed to noise during the work of the C company, and it is clear that the symptoms of each of the plaintiff's difficulties occurred due to their work.

Therefore, the instant disposition issued on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s current state of diaperic loss due to the Plaintiff’s continuous exposure to occupational noise, solely on the basis of the written evidence Nos. 6, 7’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 9, and the result of the instant court’s entrustment of the medical record appraisal for the head of an Aju University Hospital.