1. The Defendant’s disposition of paying disability benefits to the Plaintiff on December 21, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff (BB) diagnosed the “salvegic chronism, noise dynasty, and immigration name (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”)” in the C Council, and filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant by asserting that the instant injury and disease had occurred due to the work of the mining center.

B. On December 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on disability benefit site payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the Defendant in light of the Plaintiff’s age, period of suspension of noise exposure, etc. as a result of the request to the Disability Determination Committee for deliberation, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the Defendant when considering the Plaintiff’s age, period of suspension of noise exposure, etc.,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff was deemed to have worked as the E mining center and F for at least three years.”

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review against the Defendant on March 27, 2018, but the request for review was dismissed. Although the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee filed a request for review to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, the request for review was also dismissed on August 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was exposed to noise in F, etc. for about 13 years and 2 months, while working in G, etc. for about 8 years and 6 months, and thereafter, in G, etc., the Plaintiff was exposed to noise by performing duties such as the operation of the separation machine.

In addition, there is no medical history, such as family history or heavy salt, which may cause the plaintiff to have a crypt, and as a result of the special medical examination of the plaintiff shows the characteristics of the noise hearing, it should be deemed that there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's work and the injury and disease of this case. However, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise should be revoked illegally.

B.1 Duties prescribed by Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.