1. As of November 11, 2014, the Defendant’s disability grade III and intellectual disability in each disability grade rendered against the Plaintiff as of November 1, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident in 194, and was determined by the disability grade 3 with “the disability grade with delay in function” in 1998.

B. On February 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) determined the disability grade 5 of the cerebral Injury 5; and (b) notified the Plaintiff on February 25, 2013, on the basis of the National Pension Service’s review that “the Plaintiff was unable to perform his/her behavior with the walking and most daily activities without any other person’s aid; and (c) the revised detona index constitutes class 81 or 89, and falls under class 5 of the cerebral Injury 5.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on March 25, 2013. However, on May 15, 2013, the Defendant again determined the disability grade 5 with respect to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff on May 16, 2013.

On November 11, 2014, the Defendant determined the disability grade for the Plaintiff according to the results of the National Pension Service’s examination that “the degree and degree of brain disease in the brain image data, the fact that it is stated that it is a toilet under the axis in the medical record area, the degree of recognition function and behavioral disorder, and the progress of treatment, etc. are accompanied by the injury to the third degree of brain disease.” On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff was assessed as an intelligence index (I Q) 79 on the psychological evaluation report with respect to the Plaintiff that implemented on April 2013, and there was no new brain disease that is likely to cause recognition low, and considering the fact that brain image data and the progress of treatment in the medical record area, it does not meet the intellectual disability grade criteria.” The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of this on November 18, 2014.

(hereinafter the Defendant’s determination of each disability grade of November 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) . [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant’s written statement in Gap 1, 2, 8, and 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.