1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s decision on the disability grade rendered to the Plaintiff on October 15, 2012 is revoked.

3...

Details of the disposition

A. On September 22, 2006, the Plaintiff was treated for rehabilitation on August 14, 2009, after taking the trees out due to an automobile accident.

B. On September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of disabled persons [the Plaintiff] on September 24, 2012, accompanied by a medical certificate of disability on September 21, 2012 prepared by the doctor B of the Daejeon District University Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “the medical certificate of disability of the Zone Hospital”) and video materials, etc. on July 2012, 2012, wherein the scope of the movement of the bridge 6th degree 3 (the scope of movement of the bridge of a bridge decreased by at least 75%) of the bridge, which is reduced by at least 75% due to the demotion of the right-hand part (the person whose physical movement scope of the bridge of a bridge has been reduced by at least 10%).

C. On September 24, 2012, the Defendant requested the National Pension Service to examine the degree of the Plaintiff’s disability.

On October 2, 2012, C of the designated specialist of the National Pension Service (hereinafter referred to as “the designated specialist of the Corporation”) measured the Plaintiff’s tolerance movement scope, and diagnosed that “The restriction on the present tolerance movement may be necessary for an narcotics inspection in order to measure the pain and the more accurate scope of the movement based on the results of 10 degrees of soft, 5 degrees, 5 degrees, and 5 degrees of 5 degrees.”

On October 12, 2012, the National Pension Service notified the Defendant of the results of the examination that “the Plaintiff does not meet the disability grade criteria” based on the results of the above direct diagnosis, etc., and on October 15, 2012, the Defendant, on October 15, 2012, notified the Plaintiff of the results of the examination that “the Plaintiff does not meet the disability grade criteria,” and the Defendant, on the following grounds, should determine the disability grade in accordance with the relevant standard if the status of the tolerance is consistent with the objective opinion on the exercise scope and image medicine examination.