2...

A. On August 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was an employee affiliated with MK Livestock Co., Ltd., and was faced with an accident that was cut off and cut down during work (hereinafter the instant accident) and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant after obtaining approval of the medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with respect to the “the emulsion of a high-speed high-speed flusium, the emulsion base, and the emulated salt base.”

B. On September 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) recognized that the Plaintiff’s treatment was performed during the period of medical treatment, the Plaintiff’s treatment was an excessive treatment; (b) determined the disability grade under class No. 10 (a person who remains after the negopathism) of the attached Table 14, by deeming that the Plaintiff’s treatment was performed simply on the right upper part of the Plaintiff’s right upper part of the disability grade.

C. On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the foregoing decision, and the Defendant decided to raise the Plaintiff’s disability grade to Class 12 subparag. 15 (the remaining persons of severe psychotropic symptoms) (hereinafter the instant disposition) according to the recommendation of this court for conciliation (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s disability grade”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s disability grade reflects the Plaintiff’s assertion is not excessive treatment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under class 7 of class 8 (one of the three sections of the first bridge).

B. Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act [Attachment Table 6] and Enforcement Rule of the same Act [Attachment Table 5] 10. A

5) According to Paragraph 5, if the Plaintiff’s disability grade is acknowledged to have been properly treated for the purpose of cutting off the human mission of this case, the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under Class 8 subparag. 7. (Medical Opinion). (C) The Plaintiff’s main intent of care (B hospital): The Plaintiff was found to have a pulververging dog for the purpose of the operation before the operation (the Plaintiff’s age and activity was considered, and the Plaintiff attempted to carry out sulgical sulging and fixing the metal board. However, the Plaintiff’s disability grade was expressed during the operation on August 8, 2014.