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

A. On August 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was faced with the head of the tree in the course of growing trees, and was under medical care due to “foreign cerebral cerebral typosis, external typopical typosis, two flaposis, and a qualitative mental disorder”. On July 21, 2015, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade due to the said occupational accident as class VII (the Plaintiff’s disability grade is not easy to have any impediment to the function or mental function of the new system).

B. Since then, on November 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to re-determine the Plaintiff’s disability grade as class 9 (a person whose work remains limited to considerable degree of harm to the function or mental function of the neurotic system) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on July 21, 2015 that the Plaintiff could not still engage in labor since the status was not improved since the disability grade was determined as Grade VII on July 21, 2015. However, the Defendant’s disposition based on the different premise is unlawful.

◇ 산업재해보상보험법 시행령 제53조 (장해등급의 기준 등) ① 법 제57조 제2항에 따른 장해등급의 기준은 별표 6에 따른다.

In such cases, detailed standards for determining disability grades by physical parts shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

[별표6] 장해등급의 기준(제53조 제1항 관련) 제7급 제4호 : 신경계통의 기능 또는 정신기능에 장해가 남아 쉬운 일 외에는 하지 못하는 사람 제9급 제15호 : 신경계통의 기능 또는 정신기능에 장해가 남아 노무가 상당한 정도로 제한된 사람 ◇ 산업재해보상보험법 시행규칙 제48조 (신체부위별 장해등급 판정 기준) 영 제53조 제1항 후단에 따른 신체부위별 장해등급 판정에 관한 세부기준은 별표 5와...