2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a person registered as a disabled person of Grade III with intellectual disability in around 2008 (intelligent Index 81, 54.5).

In early 2015, the defendant notified the plaintiff that he will receive and submit a new disability examination for the adjustment of disability rating.

On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a copy of the disability diagnosis and medical record as of June 4, 2015, the draft of B Hospital named as “total Intelligent 69, Social Index 86.”

B. On July 23, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision that “Intelligent Index 69 was assessed on the disability diagnosis report and the psychological evaluation report, but it was assessed on the intelligence index 81 in 2008, and there is no objective ground to deteriorate the state of intellectual disability, so it is judged to be “outboard”.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 2, 3, 5, and 6’s evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as a whole, comprehensively taking into account whether the instant disposition is lawful, Gap 2 and 5 evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is unlawful for the Defendant to take the instant disposition without verifying the Plaintiff’s disability status, even though the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a disability diagnosis certificate and a copy of the medical record, which was written as “total intelligence 69” on June 4, 2015.

1. Article 2 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, Article 2(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Table 1-6 of Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that persons with intellectual disabilities of Grade 3 shall be those with intelligence index of at least 50 but less than 70.

On June 4, 2015, the disability diagnosis report submitted by the Plaintiff was written as "69, the intelligent index of the Plaintiff within the scope prescribed by the above law."

2. The Defendant’s ground for the instant disposition, on the ground that “after the evaluation of intelligence index 81 in 2008, there is no objective basis to deteriorate the status of intellectual disability.”