1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on May 20, 2019 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant, claiming that the instant injury was caused by the mining center’s work, following the diagnosis of “accomplicational dyeological dye in both sides, and damage caused by noise (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. On March 28, 2018, the Defendant decided the Plaintiff’s disability benefit site classification on the ground that “In light of the fact that the Integrated Examination Committee for Disability Determination contains a low level of lusence on both sides, and that the degree of lusence on both sides, including low-frequency and high-frequency, appears, it is difficult to recognize a causal relationship with noise.” As such, the instant injury disease was determined on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the work.”

C. Since then, on May 20, 2019, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision on disability benefit site rating (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the instant upper branch’s work in accordance with the deliberation of the Integrated Examination Committee for Disability Determination that the horizontal plane level, including low-frequency and high-frequency, cannot be seen as a noise difficult hearing in the form of a noise difficult.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is consistent with the criteria for recognition of noise in accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act due to the Plaintiff’s exposure to noise above 85dB while working in a noise business place for more than three years, and the loss of hearing power on both sides is more than 40dB.

In addition, even if the result of the net impact test against the plaintiff shows some of C5dip phenomena, which are the characteristics of noise in the state of noise, and even if not, it is long-term noise exposure or noise.