1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on December 5, 2016 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 30, 1991, the Plaintiff retired from the Maome mining center, and on March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Yangchine Epina Madroposium “The Suchine Epic Madne Madne and Noise Madne Madne (hereinafter “the instant injury”). The Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.

B. On December 5, 2016, the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff was engaged in noise work for not less than 85dB for not less than three years. However, the tax data does not confirm the work experience in the mining center, but it does not confirm specific work, and in the case of a closed mining center, it is necessary to determine whether the Plaintiff was engaged in the noise process by entering the mining center (not less than 20 regular workers) according to the average noise measurement by the process for five years in accordance with the direction of noise risk management. In the past insurance benefit register, it is not possible to determine whether the Plaintiff was engaged in the noise process because it is difficult to confirm accurate work type and process because it is entered only in the post-industrial department, and it is not possible to determine whether the Plaintiff was engaged in the noise process due to the impossibility of confirming accurate work type and process due to the Plaintiff’s request for deliberation to the integrated review of the Korea Medical Center of Yong-Namnam University of Korea.”

C. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the Board of Audit and Inspection decided to dismiss the request.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion presented that the plaintiff performed coal collection work at the noise plant in the pit in which noise exceeding 85dB was produced from coal mines for about seven years and four months, and that the plaintiff's special dust due to the defendant's request also deemed that the plaintiff's situation was a noise-related difficult noise due to noise, and that the plaintiff suffers from brus and diseases related to the brus in the brus of this case.