1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In 191, the Plaintiff was registered as a physically disabled person of the third degree under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities due to the cutting of fingers in 191, but the occurrence of brain flasing in 2005, and was registered as a first degree disabled person of the brain flasing disability in 2006.

B. On September 2012, the Defendant: (a) requested the National Pension Service to examine the Plaintiff’s degree of disability while conducting a trial on the Plaintiff’s degree of disability; and (b) rendered a disposition to determine the Plaintiff’s degree of disability as class 3 of the brain-disease disability (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on October 26, 2012 based on the results of the review by the Corporation.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection and an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but all of the appeals were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 4, Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff not only has a cerebral disease but also has a physical disability caused by finger-out, and the Defendant recognized only cerebral disease without adding it. 2) The Defendant may request the National Pension Service to review only when the first disabled person is registered under the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act or when the disability grade is adjusted according to changes in the state of disability. The Defendant arbitrarily determined the Plaintiff’s disability condition and requested the National Pension Service to examine the disability.

3) Although the amended detonex, which measure the degree of brain-related disability as 44 points for independent walking, falls under disability grade 2, the National Pension Service, which assessed the degree of disability of the Plaintiff, appears to have at least 54 points, such as deeming that the Plaintiff is capable of independent walking, etc., and the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade 3, based on the evidence Nos. 8 and 9 as to the Plaintiff’s first assertion, following the review of disability rating standards, which was enforced by the Defendant as of September 2012 by the Ministry of Health and Welfare as of September 2012.