장해등급결정처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade against the Plaintiff on September 10, 2018 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 16, 2007, the Plaintiff, an employee of B, who was engaged in the work of replacing a pressure tower, left the front part of the vehicle, and fell into the floor in the process of entering the vehicle by using a backline attached to the vehicle, and during that process, the Plaintiff was injured (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. In the instant accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the pressure 1st century, diversed, diversified typology, knee’s base, knee’s base, knenee’s fele’s base, multi-feasia damage, multi-feasia, e.g., multi-fe., multi-fe., e.g., e., g., inter-fe., e., e., g., inter-fe., e., inter-g., g., chronic e., g., g., g., g., e., g., g., g.
C. On September 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered a final determination of the Plaintiff’s disability grade (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s disability grade”) by determining that the Plaintiff’s disability grade 11(the Plaintiff’s disability grade 15) is applicable to the Plaintiff’s chronological urology (a part of urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine. The Plaintiff’s urine urine urine urine urine urine was not clearly combined urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine, but the urine son’s urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion.