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

A. On September 19, 2001, the Plaintiff approved medical care for cerebrovascular diseases due to occupational accidents. On July 31, 2004, the Plaintiff was judged as class 2 of the disability grade after the completion of medical care.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff received additional medical care from December 6, 2010 to February 9, 2017 due to the aggravation of the state of the injury or disease, and obtained approval for additional medical care for the following diseases: (a) the details of an unidentified blood-related dementia; (b) the neutronic dementia; and (c) the neutronic disease of the neutronic infection.

C. On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant. On February 15, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition on disability benefits site payment on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability status falls under class 5 of disability grade 2 (a person who needs to receive nursing from time to time due to a significant disability in the function or mental function of the relevant neurotic system) due to paralysis, cognitive function disorder, walking disability, urology, urology (patrine and urology), etc. that the Plaintiff’s disability status is not upper right-hand.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s disability status 1) falls under class 1 subparag. 3 of the disability grade subject to constant nursing care, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s disability condition “a condition entirely requires another person’s assistance in the performance of his/her behavior and all daily life (including eating),” and falls under class 1 subparag. 8 of the above grade grade. Even if not, the Plaintiff’s disability group independently affected another chest chief due to his/her disorder, i.e., e., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g.,

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which calculated the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 2 No. 5, is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The symptoms of the Plaintiff’s urology, urology, and urology have continued due to the Plaintiff’s urology, urology, and urology.