1. On July 19, 2018, the Defendant’s decision to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The background of the determination of the disability benefit site: ① The Plaintiff (B male) was a person who was engaged in digging and collecting coal in the D Mining Complex Co., Ltd. from January 1, 1976 to December 11, 1987, when he was 34 years of age; and on November 20, 2017, when he was 76 years of age, he was diagnosed by the “E Non-Korean Medical Service” in the “E Non-Korean Medical Service (hereinafter “the instant injury”), and applied for the payment of disability benefits to the Defendant on December 19, 2017.

② On July 19, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on disability benefit site rating (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s request for an assessment of business relevance to the F Hospital’s F Hospital’s Office on the basis of the results of the Plaintiff’s diagnosis, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s request for an assessment of business relevance is a result of the Plaintiff’s occurrence of noise exposure retirement (Article 31 year), the right return to the right is the proof of the merger of the imprisoned government office, and the left return to the left is difficult to see that there is a causal relationship with the Plaintiff’s office in light of the degree of change in the Cheongk-si level or the age.”

③ In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Defendant. However, on January 15, 2019, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on the ground that “The Plaintiff was diagnosed at the expiration of about 30 years of working time away from the noise workplace; there was no data on the result of the lux test that can verify the degree of the luxity immediately after his/her retirement; the Plaintiff’s age is over 76 years of age at the time of the diagnosis in 2017; according to the special medical examination’s opinion, it is difficult to recognize a causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s past noise history and the present state of luxity as a result of the luxity test.”

(4) The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the request of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee.