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

A. On April 21, 2010, the Plaintiff was registered as the fourth degree of disability due to cerebral cerebral alphalopy disability.

B. On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for disability rating review on the ground that cerebral cerebral lethy disability has aggravated, and that a new verbal disability has occurred.

C. On September 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) compared the brain diversity data taken on the basis of the disability grade criteria with “(i) brain diversity is limited to the case where the function of the arms and legs is restricted due to mathy due to brain dystrophism and a non-dystrophy movement; (b) the body body and the test dystrophism showing neological deficit; (c) the disability examination report in August 2014 states that there was an opinion on cerebral dystrophism compared to the brain dystrophism in 2008; and (d) the relevant data were written in a state where cerebral dystrophism has been reduced due to dystrophism, and the brain dystrophism data taken in July 2014, which did not constitute “the National Pension Service Notice No. 960% of the Judgment Standards for Mystrophal 98.”

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on October 24, 2014.

E. As a result of a review by comprehensively reviewing the materials submitted on November 21, 2014, the Defendant stated that there is a pedestrian state created in the opinion of opinion, and that the materials additionally submitted are sitting and standing up, the shape and function of both sides, the degree of treatment, the characteristics of the disease, clinical symptoms, and the degree and degree of brain disease on brain image materials.