The defendant's decision on disability grade made against the plaintiff on January 4, 2017 is revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 17, 201, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a worker affiliated with B, and received medical care until February 28, 2013, under the Defendant’s medical care, with the approval of the medical care, as follows: “The Plaintiff was diagnosed as a worker affiliated with B, who was in violation of gold to cut on the road on May 17, 201, and was under a light-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face in a light-face-to-face-to-face in a light-face-to-face, with no open address in two, and with no open address in two parts.”

After all, the Plaintiff completed treatment and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on May 14, 2013.

B. On May 27, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on May 27, 2013 against the Plaintiff that “persons who cannot engage in physical or mental functions other than those which remain easible labor,” and fall under class 4 of class 7 of disability grade.

(c)

In response, the Plaintiff filed an administrative suit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the above grade decision, such as the above disability, and the court of the first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guide 55409), but the appellate court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on July 15, 2016 on the ground that “a person who is not able to have a significant obstacle to the function or mental function of the psychosis (Class 5 subparagraph 8) or a person who is not able to have a significant obstacle to his/her mental function (Article 5 class 8) or his/her higher disability grade is deemed to fall under “for reasons, the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on May 27, 2013 (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu71473), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter collectively referred to as “previous lawsuit”).

After the previous lawsuit became final and conclusive, on January 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) determined the Plaintiff’s disability status as “a person with no particular disability in the function or mental function of the neurosis and determined under class 5 No. 8 of disability grade (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by determining that the Plaintiff’s disability status was “a person with no particular disability in the function or mental function of the neurosis” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On the instant disposition, the Plaintiff reviewed the Defendant.