1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on October 27, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 10, 1987, the Plaintiff retired from the Korea Coal Corporation Korea Coal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Seongsung Mining Corporation”) and on October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff received the diagnosis of the “Seongchine Nechine Distress and Noise Distress” (hereinafter referred to as the “Sechine”). On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits from the Defendant.

B. On October 27, 2017, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s site price (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on the result of the deliberation by the Defendant Integrated Examination Committee.

C. The plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but it was dismissed by the Board of Audit and Inspection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion presented the Plaintiff’s view that, for about 20 years and 9 months, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff had been exposed for a long period of not less than 86.9dB noise due to the performance of collecting coal, etc. at the noise workplace; around 2015, the Plaintiff’s view that, at the time of the diagnosis of the noise level, B B B B B-in after the diagnosis that the noise level was “it is judged that the noise level would have an adverse effect on the hearing power”; in the case of ordinary people over 70 years of age who are not exposed to the noise, the degree of hearing power was confirmed to around 25dB as a result of the inspection conducted by B-in-person level around 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed rapidly more than 45dB as a result of the examination conducted by the Plaintiff; and in addition, the Plaintiff’s treatment was unlawful by considering the premise that there was a proximate causal causal relation between the Defendant’s disease and the disease in this case before the diagnosis of the noise level.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s work details, etc.