Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On May 10, 2017, at around 15:00, the Plaintiff was killed at the construction site of the Liart Construction (hereinafter “the instant disaster”), and received medical care until November 7, 2017 with the Defendant’s diagnosis of “(i) mination and closure of the upper part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the river; (ii) mination and closure of the upper part of the front part of the front part of the river; (iii) mination of the front part of the front part of the front part of the river; (iv) damage to the upper part of the front part of the base part of the base part of the base part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the river; and (vi) approval of medical care from the Defendant.

B. Since July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits with the Defendant, and the Defendant, on August 14, 2018, determined the Plaintiff’s disability rating as class 10 of class 14.

(c)

On the other hand, after the completion of the medical care, the Plaintiff received the approval of the re-medical care due to the recurrence of the symptoms of the sick and wounded soldier, and applied for disability benefits to the Defendant on November 4, 2019. On December 4, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision on the disability grade No. 12 grade No. 10 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff based on the Plaintiff’s opinion of an integrated review meeting on the scope of 190 degrees (Grade 12) that could be able to exercise the left-hand class, and the scope of 120 degrees (less than the standard) that could be able to exercise the left-hand class.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was significantly limited to the scope of exerciseable scope of ancient tolerances and slots due to the instant disaster, and thus, the Plaintiff was unable to normally work as well as normal daily life.

In this situation, the defendant decided that the plaintiff's disability grade 12th grade 10 (the remaining person who has hindered the function of one bridge section among the three sections of the same bridge) was the defendant's disability grade 12th grade. It is unlawful that the plaintiff's disability status was not properly assessed.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case should be revoked because it is illegal.

B. Fact-finding 1) Plaintiff’s main opinion 2) Defendant Seoul Regional Headquarters.