1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 29, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a disability diagnosis report with respect to opinions that there is no possibility of vision in the future as the result of the measurement by the Seoul National University Hospital on the maximum corrected visual power 0.1 and the 0.1 high-level city in the left 0.1, and applied for the examination of the rating of visual disability to the Defendant.

B. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the exclusion from the rating on the ground that, considering the Plaintiff’s inner photo, the results of the Magro-bro-bruptis test, the results of the Magro-brupt test, the results of the Magro-bru test, the results of the Magro-bru test, the results of the Magro-bru test, etc.,

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). (c)

On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition. However, the Defendant, on September 26, 2017, stated the disability diagnosis letter with respect to the Plaintiff as “the maximum calibration time of both designs” 0.1, but on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s objection was dismissed by again making a decision on a non-grade rating on the ground that it is not recognized as a view that it falls under the category of visual disability, considering the fact that there was no abnormal opinion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s maximum correction vision of the Plaintiff’s assertion is below 0.1 and falls under class 4 of visual disability, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2, it is recognized that the vision and vision of the Plaintiff’s disability diagnosis report are 0.1, respectively, and that the Plaintiff’s disability diagnosis report is 0.1, and that it has no possibility of vision subsequent to the ancient city, on the other hand.