In a case where Party A, who received a disability grade after having started to have a disability reflect on face, etc. and requested a reexamination of a disability grade by telegraph, and the competent administrative agency determined and notified the disability grade as “out of disability grade” on the ground that the disability grade criteria are not included in a lebism, the case holding that Party A’s disposition is unlawful on the ground that it constitutes a person with a safe disability caused by a wide range of lebism indicated in the inside

In a case where Party A, who received disability ratings through a diagnosis of a blurry disorder after having started a disability reflect on face, requested a review of disability ratings by the competent administrative agency on the ground that the disability grade criteria are not included in a blurry disability rating, the case holding that the determination criteria for disability rating determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Health and Welfare should be determined by the interpretation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, on the ground that the disability grade criteria prescribed and publicly notified by Article 2 and [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities are specifically interpreted and the method of standard examination is presented to determine disability ratings (Article 1(1) of the Act on the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities), so whether a burum disability constitutes a burine disability under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the determination should be made by the interpretation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities and the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities.

Article 2(1) and (2) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act; Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act; Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hemb City (Attorney Jeong-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Guhap1807 Decided February 12, 2014

May 29, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Claim: The Defendant’s decision on February 7, 2013 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

The purport of appeal: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After the plaintiff started to go against the Myanmar in light of face face around August 1991, the plaintiff was diagnosed by the Central University Hospital, etc. after the symptoms were transferred to a telegraph.

B. On November 21, 2006, the Plaintiff registered as a disabled person with a disability rating 4, upon receiving a determination of disability grade 4, and received a two-year disability grade review on February 6, 2009, and received a second-year disability grade 3 and a third-level disability 3 on February 24, 201.

C. The Plaintiff requested the disability grade review on January 14, 2013. However, the Defendant, a specialized institution for the disability grade, requested the National Pension Service, to examine the Plaintiff’s degree of disability and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the review, on February 5, 2013, on the ground that “the lebinum is a fluoric disease, which does not constitute a fluorial shotum, coloring, fluoring, fluoring, tissue’s vision or bruing, or deficit,” and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the determination of the disability grade (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection, but was notified by the Defendant that there was no change in the result of the determination of “outstanding disability rating” on the same ground.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 and 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff suffers from severe lebruities at the inner part of a social life, and it is no longer impossible to provide medical treatment. Therefore, even though the Plaintiff should be deemed as falling under the disability disability under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities [Attachment 1], the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade as “out-class” on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability grade does not include lebruism. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Relevant statutes and public notification;

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

(c) Medical opinions;

1) Results of inquiry into the Korean Medical Doctor Association of the first instance court

○ Ma Melin Deflucation is a defluoral disease caused by the cell loss in Melin and by the rooms in Melelin arising therefrom, and is classified as a kind of coloring low-fluoral cluoral cluoral cluoral cluoral (or a low-fluoral cluoral cluorral cluoral

In general, 00 square meters are used in the imposition of charges to mean "progrespondings", "progrespondings", "progrespondings" and "progrespondings", and in cases where the decline in the color is meaningful, it is used to mean "hypopgings".

In the case of exposure to the face, trees, grandchildren, etc., there is a great damage to the quality of life, except for symptoms in the non-influence book, and the functional scale thereof. In addition, although it does not give considerable inconvenience to the patient's emotional aspects, personal relationship, and social life, it is not determined that there is a brupt of the inner part, if there is a brush of the inner part, it can be determined as a disability, or that there is a brut disorder. It cannot be determined as a disability if there is a brut of the inner part, or if there is a brut disorder, it is diagnosed as a disability by sufficiently treating the cause disease, etc.

2) The result of inquiry into Seoul National University Hospital by the court of the first instance

On November 20, 2003, Jan. 13, 2004, the Plaintiff conducted a racer treatment at the Division of Seoul National University Hospital for the purpose of lacing the lacing. It is impossible to confirm the exact progress of the treatment because it was received for a long time at the Seoul Special Hospital before 2003 but did not keep past records.

The reason for the 000 percentage symptoms is not clear, and the external factors, such as genetic elements, nutritional conditions, images, and traumas, etc., are combined, and later, cells, which are not Melel, are destroyed by i.e., voluntary i., cleaning. The plaintiff is presumed to have been exposed to excessive external radiation in the occupation of cleaning work, and thus excessive exposure to external radiation has been caused as an important factor.

○ In principle, the treatment for the recovery of Melincule is in a broad range of 80% or more, but if there is a wide range of 80% or more, deflacing treatment rather than the treatment for the recovery of Melincule will be cosmeticly merged. The Plaintiff conducted deflacing treatment using racer twice with the wide range of scope, not by improving it, but rather by destroying the remaining color facility and making it less cosmeticly cosmeticly.

○ Ma Ma-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-

In the case of the plaintiff, it is judged that there is no treatment to improve the current law with a very broad range of time, and even if some of them are fully improved, it is judged that the effect of the efforts and costs will not be significant in comparison

3) The result of the fact-finding conducted by the court of the first instance on the Masan Hospital

○ The name of the Plaintiff’s disease is white shot, the principal symptoms are face and the face of the telegraph, and the part of the skin of the telegraph.

○ The Plaintiff was performing drug treatment from May 2, 2001 to February 2, 2004, and transferred to the third medical institution. From April 25, 2008 to May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) placed a prescription for internal and external medicine treatment at the third medical institution; and (b) transferred to the Plaintiff and the present medical institution during the treatment.

○ The Plaintiff is a disease for which there is no special symptoms during the treatment period, and the treatment is difficult to completely recover from the treatment only in the case of the original wide range, and even if there is a little preference to the treatment for 14 years, it is reasonable to view that the symptoms are fixed because there is no possibility of improvement in the future, even though it has been treated for 14 years.

D. Determination

1) Article 2(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities provides that “The disabled person means a person whose physical or mental disability is subject to considerable restriction in daily life or social life for a long time.” Article 2(2) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities delegates the type and standard of disability to the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities sets out the type and standard of disability. Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities delegates the degree of disability to the Minister of Health and Welfare. Accordingly, Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities sets out “the degree of disability” according to the type and degree of disability under [Attachment 1], and provides that the Minister of Health and Welfare may determine and publicly notify the specific criteria for determining disability disability ratings.

2) In light of the above-mentioned provision and the overall purport of oral argument, the Plaintiff’s “standards for disability grade” determined and publicly announced by the Minister of Health and Welfare is to specifically interpret the standards for disability grade under Article 2 and [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities and to determine disability ratings accurately (for the purpose of Chapter 1 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities), it seems that the standard for disability should be determined by the interpretation of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. (2) The above standard for determining disability is that the Plaintiff’s physical disability is not so wide as to be seen as 0 per se, and that it is difficult to interpret that the above standard for determining disability grade 1 is not so wide as to be seen as 1,000 if it appears that it is difficult to view that the above standard for determining disability grade 3 or more is not a new one.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on the premise that the Plaintiff is not a person with a disability should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Jung-hun (Presiding Judge)