2014Gudan20357 The revocation of the revocation of the payment of disability benefits

A

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Manox Co., Ltd.

March 11, 2015

April 8, 2015

1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on July 17, 2014 is revoked. 2. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant, and the part resulting from the participation is borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 11, 2002, the Plaintiff joined Mine Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted company”) and was engaged in the affairs such as assembly, thought, and painting inspection, etc. on the part of the Plaintiff, which was withdrawn on February 28, 2014.

B. On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for disability grade with the Defendant on the ground that a long-term exposure to noise (hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury and disease”) occurred, including the period of working for the Nonparty Company.

C. On July 17, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Plaintiff paid disability benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff had worked in a noise-emitting place of less than 85dB consecutively and does not fall under the criteria for recognition of occupational diseases under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was exposed to machinery, work noise, etc. at the workplace for about 30 years including the period during which the Plaintiff performed the duties, such as assembly, thought, painting, etc. at the non-party company. Accordingly, the injury and disease in this case constitutes occupational accident, and the Defendant’s disposition on the other hand was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Plaintiff’s work details, work environment, etc.

A) On April 11, 2002, the Plaintiff joined a manufacturing company, such as a floodgate, diversing machine, valve, etc., and worked until February 28, 2014. The Plaintiff’s duties were assembly works, academic work, painting work, and hydrotension test. Among them, the portion of assembly, thought, and painting work among them was 4.5, thought work was 1, and painting work was 4.5 hours, and the Plaintiff’s daily working hours was 3.5 hours extended to 8 hours on an average.

B) The Plaintiff mainly worked in the painting process in the non-party company’s workplace, and did not work in a space separated from each process, such as a wall or structure, etc., and the distance between the painting process and the thought process was about seven to eight meters.

C) Meanwhile, in the non-party company’s workplace, the processing process and thought process were conducted and reported in accordance with the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act as the relation between the noise generation workplace and the non-party company’s work environment measurement result (noise) from 2011 to 2013, according to the unit work environment measurement result (noise) for the non-party company’s processing process and thought process, the noise level in 201 was 84.2 to 84.7dB, the noise level in 2012 to 83.4 to 84.1dB, the noise level in 2013 to 83.5 to 84.4dB, and the noise level in 2013 to 83.5 to 84.4dB, respectively, and the wearing of personal protective equipment

(ii) medical opinions

A) There was almost no difference between the inspection date and the inspection date at the 3rd inspection of the Plaintiff’s (Dongdong University Hospital’s Vocational Environment Department). In view of the Plaintiff’s positive history and the previous health examination of the Plaintiff’s audio program’s high frequency, the typical noise distress hearing was presented. The degree of loss of the best lucence was 46dB on the right-hand side, 44dB on the right-hand side, 50dB on the right-hand side, 45dB on the left-hand side, and the minimum note 84% on the right-hand side and 76% on the left-hand side in the identification capacity. - In full view of the Plaintiff’s vocational history and previous health examination records, and the three times’s previous health examination, the possibility of the Plaintiff’s lucence caused by noise exposure for about 30 years is believed to be certain.

B) According to the matters requested for special medical examinations (i.e., Embination of the Busan National University), both sides of the Plaintiff is normal, and both sides of the Ambination test shows the gymnasity of both sides.

원고의 청력손실도는 우측 기도 45dB, 골도 41dB, 좌측 기도 44dB, 골도 43dB이고, 최고어음명료도는 우측 75dB에서 80%, 좌측 80dB에서 76%이다. 원고는 현재 양측 감각신경성 난청을 동반한 우측 3h에서 5dBSL 크기의 '-' 양상의 이명, 좌측 3에서 5dBSL 크기의 '뻥' 양상의 이명을 호소한다.

- In consideration of the Plaintiff’s medical history, career history, etc., the possibility of infertility caused by mephism, drug addiction, heat-related disease, Mexa-si, Mazho, two out of the Mexa, hexa-si, hexa-si, prone disorder, genetic chronia, family chronological disorder, elderly scarcity, or calamity explosion, is low, and there is a possibility of inception by noise at the workplace.

C) Results of the fact-finding conducted by this Court on the Head of Dong University Hospital

From 2010 to 2013, when the Plaintiff worked for 11.5 hours a day average from the place of work where noise such as the result of the measurement of the previous work environment was measured, the possibility of having influenced the present status of the Plaintiff would be 10 to 30%, and when the Plaintiff worked for 11.5 hours a day average for about 11 to 10 years a year, the possibility of having influenced the present status of the Plaintiff would be 40 to 65%.

If the wearing of the protective outfit is neglected, it is likely that the noise level might be caused if the protective outfit is exposed for a long time at the above noise level.

In light of the result of the examination of the Cheong-domin test, the factors other than noise are deemed to cause the plaintiff's difficult hearing, and there is no particular age.

D) Results of this court's fact-finding on the director of Busan University Hospital

- Considering the Plaintiff’s medical history, career history, etc., there is a possibility of suffering from noise in the workplace, which can be presumed to be 25 to 50%. Since there is a difference between individuals and noise, there is a possibility of suffering from noise in the environment where less than 85dB noise occurs for not less than three years.

- From 2010 to 2013, where the Plaintiff worked on an average of 11.5 hours a day from the place of work where noise, such as the result of the working environment measurement, as seen earlier, was measured for 11.5 hours a period of four years, the possibility of having influenced the present status of the Plaintiff can be presumed to be 25-50%, and where the Plaintiff worked on an average of 11.5 hours a day during about 11 year and 10 months, the possibility of having influenced the present status of the Plaintiff can be presumed to

- When the noise continues to be wide, the temporary reverse change reaches a certain level by increasing the point of occupation, which is called a dynamic change, which is the upper limit of the reverse change of the dynamic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic dysomic

E) As a result of the special medical examination conducted by the Defendant’s Busan University Hospital, the Plaintiff’s lucence loss rate appears to be 45dB, the left-hand 4dB, and the lucence by noise is doubtful; however, the Defendant’s lucence rate is not consistent with the standards of the workplace that is exposed to more than 85dB noise in succession.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, and the court head of Busan University Hospital in Busan National University, head of Dong University Hospital in Dongnam University, defendant Mano-Tex in terms of the environment of Dongnam University and the purport of the whole arguments as a whole.

D. Determination

1) According to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") No. 34(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") '7.7. The following conditions are the following conditions: (i) in case where a worker has a sensitive pathic defect with the exposure of not less than 85dB noise continuously for not less than three years; (ii) in case where a worker has a sensitive pathic defect with the exposure of not less than 40dB, the worker's symptoms are not obvious diseases; and (iii) in case where there is no obvious difference between Cheongdoc and Ethic typhic typhical typhical typhical typhical typhism as a result of the positive typhic typhical examination, the determination of whether there is a high probability that there is an occupational typhical typhical typhism in the absence of any special circumstance that there is a high probability that there is an occupational ty defect.

However, Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Act, which is the basis of the above provision, defines "occupational accident" as "occupational accident, disease, disability, or death caused by occupational reason," and "disease caused by occupational reason" refers to a disease caused by occupational reason and which has a proximate causal relation with the business and therefore, in light of such legal principles, it is reasonable to see that the standard for recognition of occupational accident under the above provision of the Enforcement Decree was presented or presented by the delegation of Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Act, and it does not purport to exclude recognition of occupational accident by a method other than the above standard.

2) However, the following circumstances revealed through the above recognition facts, namely, ① the Plaintiff was exposed to the noise at the workplace for about 11 years and 10 months since its entry into the non-party company, ② the Plaintiff did not measure the noise at the workplace in the non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company’s work site. However, the distance between the Plaintiff’s painting process and the processing process and the thought process, which have not been separated from the structure. From 2011 to 2013, considering the result of the working environment measurement of the processing process and thought’s 85dB from the 2013rd working environment, it appears that the noise level was exposed to the non-party company for more than 5 years from the 5-year working environment from the 5-year working environment from the 5-year working environment from the 5-year working environment from the 5-year working environment, and the Plaintiff could not have been found to have been exposed to the 5-year working environment from the 5-year working environment.

Therefore, since the injury and disease of this case are occupational accidents, the defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's application for disability benefits for the injury and disease of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Warrant of Judge