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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

In the appellate court, the plaintiff asserts that even if the plaintiff's inner and physical disability are derived from the damage to the neutism system, it is different from the plaintiff's mental and physical disability and the neutism, so it becomes the subject of the grade adjustment.

However, in full view of the evidence cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited earlier, the Plaintiff’s mental and physical disability is recognized as class 7 subparag. 4 [Article 7 subparag. 4 [Article 7 subparag. 4 and Article 8 subparag. 7 subparag. 8 are not class 8 (Article 5 subparag. 7) but class 7 subparag. 4 (Article 7 subparag. 4) (Article 7 subparag. 4) (Article 7 subparag. 7 provides that the Plaintiff’s mental and physical disability is merely 31% due to the Plaintiff’s mental and physical disability so that the rate of loss of labor ability due to the Plaintiff’s mental and physical disability is less than 31%, and thus, the disability grade pertaining thereto is not a person who is not likely to have a significant obstacle to the function or mental function of the neuro

Therefore, even if the grade is adjusted by deeming the inside and the disability as a separate disability like the plaintiff's assertion, there are two or more disabilities of grade 8 or higher, and accordingly, the grade of the most severe disability is increased by two pursuant to Article 53 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act.

There is no illegality in the disposition of the defendant as the plaintiff's disability grade 5.

Plaintiff

We cannot accept the assertion.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.