1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade against the Plaintiff on March 27, 2013 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 16, 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “a closed pelto at the bottom of the border/non-alley, damage to the bridge root of the following bridge, damage to the right-hand balves, damage to the chronic aggregate infection (hereinafter “instant injury”)” due to an occupational accident, and provided medical treatment with the Defendant’s approval, and completed the medical treatment on March 12, 2013.

B. On March 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant. On March 27, 2013, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s disability grade as “Class 14, class 14, class 12, class 14, class 14, class 12, class 14, and class 9, the Plaintiff’s disability grade on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability grade was determined against the Plaintiff as “assumed persons with significant trouble in the function of one of the three sections of one bridge, among the three sections of one bridge.”

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1 to 6, each entry of Gap’s No. 1 to 5 (including additional numbers), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s disability caused by the instant wound ought to be determined as disability grade 7, 1, 12-14 (a person who has failed to properly use four strokes or other strokes of his own proposal) and 2, 8-7 (a person who has failed to properly use one strokes of his own proposal 3) of his strokes, but the instant disposition based on the different premise is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Under the classification of medical opinions, the number of pages 50 to 500 to 300 to 200 to 300 to 20 to 12 grade 14 (1/2 or more) 12 grade 14 (1/2 or more) 12 grade 14 (1/2 or more) 12 grade 14 (1/2 or 40 to 20 to 300 to 300 to 12 grade 14 (1/2 or more) of the defendant's advisory opinion by the plaintiff doctor within the normal range of classification of the movement scope of the letter of satisfaction (2: Do unit: Do unit) (205 to 405 to 205 to 10 to 300 to 110 to 40 (3/40 to 40 (1/2) of the plaintiff's advisory opinion).