1. The Defendant’s disposition of paying disability benefits to the Plaintiff on November 23, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 16, 1976 to June 30, 1992, the Plaintiff (B) served respectively as Chutan signal for about 15 years and 8 months digging areas, from August 3, 1992 to May 31, 1993.

B. On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) received disability diagnosis from the D non-humanarology unit located in Thai-si; and (b) filed a claim for disability benefit with the Defendant on February 28, 2018 after receiving disability diagnosis from the D non-humanology unit.

C. On November 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a disability benefit payment disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “In light of the following: (a) each of the following: (b) each of the pathal chronology (50dB/61dB; (c) each of the 6-minute Cheongneical Cheongneology; and (d) each of the 88%/86%/86% of the face value; (d) the period after the Plaintiff’s departure was suspended from the Plaintiff’s noise exposure (including approximately 25 years); and (e) the type of the flus that appears in the Cheongne map due to a special fact, it is difficult for both of the Plaintiff to deem that there exists a causal relationship

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was exposed to not less than 85dB noise while working as Ctan for about 16 years and six months, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered noise hazards.

Even if the plaintiff's difficult hearing is deemed to be mixed with the noise in distress and the elderly in distress, it can be deemed that the elderly in distress due to the noise in distress led to the progress of the natural progress and the situation of the present in distress. Therefore, a proximate causal relationship between the plaintiff's difficult hearing and the affairs is recognized.

Nevertheless, the defendant made the disposition of this case on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's office and the office, and it should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff is recognized as a result of a general health examination.