1. The Defendant’s disposition of providing disability benefits to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around 1970 to October 3, 1994, the Plaintiff engaged in digging and collecting coal from B, C, and D, etc.

B. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by each EBBE and a member of EBE, and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on April 3, 2018.

As a result of the verification of facts related to the direct power submitted by the Plaintiff, the 4th insurance acquisition history, and the 3-year employment history verification standard, it is confirmed that noise exposure 85dB, total amount of income, are met. However, as a result of the special medical examination and various data, the doctor of the Corporation’s advisory opinion based on the results of the examination and various data is a medical opinion that “the business relations is reduced due to the lapse of 20 years after leaving the department of the noise risk, and it is considered to be close to the elderly distress,” and as a result, considering the results of the deliberation by the Consolidated Review Committee and various reference materials submitted, it is confirmed as 4dB, the left-hand, 53dB, but it is difficult to recognize as a noise distress due to the determination of the elderly sex hearing even if the noise exposure was more than 20 years and considering relevant matters, such as the datum value.”

Therefore, the claim for disability benefits submitted by the Plaintiff does not meet the detailed criteria for recognition of occupational diseases in the attached Table 3 of Article 34(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and it is inevitable to determine

C. On November 30, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the disability benefit site level on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Both sides of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work should be deemed to be recognized as a noise-related distress occurred due to the Plaintiff’s exposure to noise while working in the mining station for a long time in the past.

Therefore, this is different.