장애등급외 결정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of intellectual disability with the Defendant.
B. On November 6, 2018, the Defendant, upon having requested the National Pension Service to examine the Plaintiff’s disability grade, notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff does not fall under the category of intellectual disability in the criteria for determining the disability grade, rendered a decision other than the grade of intellectual disability (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s physical disability grade does not fall under the criteria for determining the disability grade in light of a comprehensive consideration of the intelligence index 70 in the psychological evaluation report, the treatment process in the medical record area, the learning development status in school life register, etc.
C. On January 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, and the Defendant requested the National Pension Service to review the disability rating with respect to the Plaintiff, and on January 10, 2019, notified the Plaintiff of the decision on the grade of intellectual disability as well as the instant disposition on January 22, 2019, upon receiving notification from the National Pension Service of the determination on the grade of intellectual disability with respect to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on March 20, 2019, but was dismissed on April 29, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s intellectual disability at present is currently determined in intelligence index 70 on the disability diagnosis letter, and shows that it constitutes a congenital disability. As such, the Plaintiff’s intellectual disability should be deemed as falling under class 3 of the intellectual disability.
Therefore, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff's intellectual disability third level is unlawful.
B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. Determination 1 under Article 2(1) and (2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities is the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities.