logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.02.09 2017구단66438
장해급여부지급처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed of “the suspicion of the Machine Machine and the Machine Machine of Noise (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.

B. However, on August 12, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s left-hand injury confirms the Plaintiff’s high-speed and high-speed disease, and the right-hand injury is determined to be the Elderly, and thus, it does not meet the standards for recognition of noise hazards” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review and reexamination, but all of which were dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted through digging operations in a mining station for a total of seven years from 1985 to 1994, and the Plaintiff was exposed to serious noise during which the Plaintiff lost luxity.

Therefore, even though the injury or disease of the plaintiff on the right-hand return occurred due to the plaintiff's work, the disposition of this case which did not recognize it as an occupational disease is unlawful.

B. Fact 1) The Plaintiff’s experience of exposure to noise was B, for four and four months from December 20, 1985 to February 28, 1990, and for three and four years from February 20, 191 to June 30, 1994, the Korea Coal Corporation was exposed to noise in the course of digging at the Seongdong Mining Complex (2) a doctor’s opinion (C non-obsive Woo, 3 times from January 20, 2016, and three times from February 20, 1990). The Plaintiff’s response (3 times from each side of the following areas: Cheongsung C’s typhism, Cheongsung’s positive force, Cheongsung’s positive force, 57dB, and 80dB from February 30, 1994, and 10 or more of both sides’s normal noise from each of the areas.

arrow