장해등급결정처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of disability ratings rendered against the Plaintiff on December 29, 2014 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a disabled person under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “Act”), and on December 29, 2014, the Defendant calculated the scope of movement by deeming the Plaintiff’s “vertebral disability in accordance with the standards for determination of disability rating” as the case where the vertebral disorder was lost due to spine, brate, pellet, etc., and calculated the scope of movement by deeming that the flag disorder was lost, and the scope of movement in the
b. A determination of the disability grade of “out the class” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) was made on the grounds that the instant documents and video materials showed that the pelletism status No. 3-4 was changed between the following: Provided, That where the scope of the movement in the scopic is reduced to less than 1/5 of the normal conditions, it does not fall under the vertebal disability grade criteria. (b) The Plaintiff should reflect not only the pelletism between the Defendant around January 2015, but also the congenital genetic ties between the 4-5 and the 3-4th following the scopic scopic ties to the Defendant.
On February 3, 2015, the Defendant filed an objection on the ground that “The spinal disability in accordance with the disability grade criteria is deemed to have lost all the physical function of the division, and the division other than the fixed division is determined by considering the physical function of the division in normal terms, and the movement scope of the climatic or chrone decreases to not less than 1/5. Moreover, it is not included in the congenital distribution of congenital spine. As a result of a comprehensive review of the submitted data, this is not included in the congenital distribution of spine No. 4-5, and it is not accepted on the ground that it does not fall under the category of spine disability except for the case where the scope of movement in the climatic 3-4 pule is reduced to less than 1/5 in normal terms.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 5 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion.