1. On February 7, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of re-determination of a disability grade (Grade 9 applicable mutatis mutandis) against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was faced with a fall accident while conducting string of roof materials at the site of the construction of a model hybrid in Gangnam-si B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered injury (hereinafter “each of the instant injury”). The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as thalphical cerebral cerebral hemosis, halthralthrosis, halthralthrosis, halthralthrosis, halthralthrosis, halthralthrosis, and halthralthrosis, etc. (hereinafter “each of the instant injury”).

[Basic Calculation] A person who was unable to properly use a new section 7 of general class 8, one section among the three sections of a bridge, and the new section 12 class 14 of general class, one section 14 of class 14, and other four sections of the same bridge, and a person who was unable to appropriately use the section 7 of class 7 applicable mutatis mutandis [final Calculation], a determination of the applicable grade (a determination of the termination function and the function of a bridge for loss) by adjustment method (a determination of the degree of mutatis mutandis application);

B. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained approval for medical care for each of the instant injury and received a disposition of disability grade determination under class VII, which applied mutatis mutandis the disability grade as follows, from the Defendant.

[Disability] New disability condition] New disability: 30 degrees of physical exercise range for the left part of the bridge(s) and 30 degrees of debris, 0 degrees of debris sports range 60 degrees of debris, knee-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-gne-kne-gne-kne-gne-gne-kne-gne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-k

C. On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-determination of a disability grade with the aggravation of the Defendant’s disability. On February 7, 2018, the Defendant determined the disability grade with respect to the Plaintiff as class 11 applicable mutatis mutandis for the following reasons.

The plaintiff above C.

The defendant filed a petition for examination against the decision to set a trial as stated in the paragraph, but the defendant filed a petition on June 8, 2018.