1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On May 18, 2006, the plaintiff was an employee of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff was tried to avoid the share of at least 200 degrees, among the internal inspection of the engine engine of a vehicle.

The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “Saeum dump, hump, left-hand salted, left-hand salted, and left-hand salted,” and applied for medical care to the Defendant. On June 1, 2006, the Defendant approved medical care for each injury or disease.

After that, on June 2, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury and disease due to the “gale, eye, and other damage”, but the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care on June 9, 2006.

In other words, on August 14, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for an additional disease against the “malptive disorder” on September 20, 2006, and the Defendant approved each of the medical care on August 17, 2006 and November 2, 2006.

The Plaintiff terminated the medical care by October 10, 2007, and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on October 16, 2007.

The Defendant rendered a decision of class 4 subparag. 3 of the disability grade corresponding to “a person who has lost his/her hearing ability entirely due to the total loss or any other reason,” and accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid a disability compensation annuity from October 11, 2007 to November 25, 2015.

After that, the Defendant received information that the Plaintiff was receiving a disability grade by manipulating the state of disability. On October 8, 2015, the insurance investigation department received the Plaintiff’s hearing records, etc., and confirmed the Plaintiff’s hearing records, etc. in a very normal state at the time of healing. Therefore, the Defendant was presented an opinion that it is reasonable to cancel the initial decision to pay disability benefits and change the disability grade through the relevant procedures.

Therefore, based on the medical records and personal interviews, the members of the defendant advisory doctors and advisory doctors confirmed and examined the plaintiff's disability status, and the net optopy test conducted at the time of recovery is not consistent, and all 30dB on both sides of the brain-causing response test are considered to be 30dB.