장해등급4급결정처분취소
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 March 1, 2006, the Plaintiff subscribed to the National Pension Scheme as an individually insured person until then, and had a congenital dwarfism disorder (120 km, 35 km in body). On January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on the escape card and the scopical scopic scopic scopic 5-6 on January 28, 2013.
B. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for disability ratings with the Defendant with respect to the escape certificate of a conical signboard between 5-6 and the number of pages.
C. On December 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a determination of disability grade 4 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a request for review, but was dismissed on April 9, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In light of the fact that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was unable to lead a daily life without any other person's help due to the damage of light water, and that he was judged as disability class 2 under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the plaintiff's class shall be higher than class 4.
The defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.
3. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the appraisal conducted by the head of the relevant court of the judgment on the legality of the instant disposition, it is recognized that the Plaintiff respondeded to the following facts: “The Plaintiff was in the state of damage to water and sacrine, 4-5, and 5-6 protruding signboards escape certificate; the Plaintiff’s current disability falls under class 1, but the disability caused by the instant traffic accident except for the king disability falls under class 4.”
On the contrary, the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone regarding the fact that the Plaintiff’s disability grade is higher than that of class 4 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.
Therefore, the defendant's objection is based on this premise.