1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade against the Plaintiff on July 18, 2016 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the medical treatment on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s accident that was cut down at the site of a new house construction project (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) the instant accident was diagnosed by “the brain fluoral fluoral typosis, the left-hand fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoralsium; (c) the credit fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral; (d) the external fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, No. 5,7,7,8; and (e) obtained the Defendant’s medical treatment approval on the left-hand fluoral fluoral fral f.

B. On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant. On July 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to determine the Plaintiff’s final disability grade as class 12 and 115 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by deeming that the Plaintiff’s disability grade of the Plaintiff’s chronic system function falls under class 12 and class 15, which is “the remainder of a minor modified disability in her country,” and that the Plaintiff’s final disability grade falls under class 11 of class 14, which is “the remainder of a minor modified disability in her country.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, according to the opinion of the physical examination of the department of mental health in this case, the disability grade of the Plaintiff’s head due to the instant accident falls under class 15. Meanwhile, the Defendant should not exclude the refluent body part within the scope of the framework of Section 14, 11, and 12, which is “the person who remains after the verte of not more than two spinal body in spinal body,” on the ground that the Plaintiff’s head due to the instant accident does not affect the pel examination.