지체(하지기능) 장애등급외결정처분취소
1. On May 9, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-degree disability ratings rendered against the Plaintiff on the ground that the decision was revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of “non-functional disability” from the medical specialist of the rehabilitation department affiliated with B Hospital, and applied for registration of a disabled person with physical disability to the Defendant, on the ground that “one-way and one-way and the walking stairs, the reduction of the walking stairs, the bus board, etc., alone cannot be viewed as having been made, and the remaining part of it constitutes class 2”, on the ground that it constitutes “non-functional disability” and applied for registration of a disabled person.
B. According to the results of the review notified by the Defendant to the National Pension Service, a specialized institution for disability grade examination upon request of the Plaintiff’s disability grade. On May 11, 2016, the Defendant determined the degree of functional disability according to the degree of the disability in the case where the ability of a bridge is deteriorated due to damage to the number of legs or the boundaries of the terminal, or due to a flasium disease, etc. on the basis of disability grade, and does not include a reduction loss or pain, and when the bridge’s functional disability is due to paralysis, the degree of the entire bridge’s physical disability (class 3 below the calendar degree) should be the degree that the entire bridge’s physical disability in the data submitted by the Plaintiff is not the degree of the second class below the third grade. However, on November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff’s physical disability grade was determined as the 4th grade in the Doar History examination, and the Plaintiff’s physical disability grade was not recognized as the “non-class disability grade” of the case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap (including a branch number) and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is to the extent that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to see or walk themselves as the Plaintiff suffered from long-term hospital treatment by suffering pictures from gas explosion accidents.