1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 29, 1969 to May 31, 1993, the Plaintiff asserted that, as a result of the exposure to noise, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the “nurgical chronological chronological chronological ect,” and filed a claim for disability benefits for the instant injury to the Defendant on July 7, 2015.

B. However, on September 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff would not pay disability benefits claimed by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits has expired (hereinafter “the first site payment disposition”), and thereafter, the Defendant issued a disposition that the Plaintiff would not pay disability benefits again on the ground that the Plaintiff’s state of disability falls short of the noise level recognition standard by the Korea Communications Commission (hereinafter “the second site payment disposition”) on the ground that the Defendant revoked the first site payment disposition in consideration of the purport of the Supreme Court precedents (Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7374 Decided September 4, 2014) regarding the initial date of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim disability benefits, instead of cancelling the first site payment disposition (hereinafter “the second site payment disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Gudan71768) against the second site-based disposition and sought revocation thereof. During the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff and the Defendant accepted the recommendation of mediation on December 18, 2017, stating that the Plaintiff would withdraw the lawsuit when the second site-based disposition is revoked.

After that, on May 10, 2018, the Defendant revoked the secondary site pay disposition, and rendered a disposition to determine the Plaintiff’s disability grade related to the instant upper branch as Class 7 (a person who could not hear a large cancellation rate at a distance of at least one meter from both the hearing capacity) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the instant disposition, but the request for examination was dismissed on September 12, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The case.