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

A. On August 23, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the right shoulderer’s certificate of refratosis, and was subject to the refratization of the mission, which was the shoulderer’s defratization.

B. On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for disability registration to the Defendant upon a disability diagnosis that the Plaintiff’s shoulder reduction movement scope at the Seoul Medical Center constituted more than 50% of the Plaintiff’s arms. However, on September 2, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on disability rating to the Plaintiff based on the results of the National Pension Service’s examination as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition.” The above criteria for determining disability ratings shall apply mutatis mutandis to class 1 (2) or 6 (Section 1) 1 of class 5 to the case where the performance of an scopical scopical scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s).

The Plaintiff filed an objection, but the Defendant rendered a decision in excess of the next disability grade to the Plaintiff based on the results of the National Pension Service’s examination as follows on September 26, 2014.

Although it is stated that the movement scope of the right shoulder is reduced as a result of a comprehensive review and review of the disability diagnosis statement and medical record list submitted, it is stated that there is no poor opinion after the implementation of the cryptization of the human mission, and the movement scope of the right shoulder is less than 50% reduced according to the opinion, and the limitation of functions due to low forests, pains, etc. do not fall under the grade criteria, and video medical examination is conducted.