2...

A. On October 4, 1989, the Plaintiff joined the company and acquired the qualification for a national pension subscriber, and on March 3, 2012, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of 'net color urinalism' in both areas, and filed a claim for the payment of a disability pension with the Defendant on March 14, 2012.

B. On April 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff had had a luculism before being admitted to the National Pension Scheme; and (b) rendered a decision corresponding to the entitlement to a disability pension.

On this issue, the plaintiff filed an administrative suit with this court as 2012Gudan3839, and the above court rendered a favorable judgment of the plaintiff, and the defendant's appeal was dismissed, which became final and conclusive as it is.

The purport of the above final and conclusive judgment is to deem that the Plaintiff’s right to receive the above disability pension was rapidly ongoing around April 29, 2006, when the Plaintiff acquired the qualification for a national pension subscriber, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the occurrence of a Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-

C. On July 17, 2014, the Defendant decided on July 17, 2014 that the Plaintiff constitutes a beneficiary of a disability pension.

However, with respect to the disability grade, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s eyesight from April 29, 2006 to October 30, 2007, when one year and six months have elapsed since the beginning date, does not fall under the disability grade standard from April 29, 2006 to March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff rendered a decision that only after March 14, 2012, the two parts of the disability grade 1 were reduced to less than 0.02 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1.