1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade that the Plaintiff rendered on November 4, 2015 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. While working in B on November 21, 2010, the Plaintiff provided medical care with the approval of the medical care from the Defendant with respect to brain cerebral dystrophism caused by an occupational accident on the part of November 21, 2010, and closed medical treatment on May 31, 2013, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was paid disability benefits by the Defendant [Article 6 of the disability grade adjustment [Article 8 subparag. 6 (Article 8 subparag. 6) of the Act on the part of the Defendant (Article 10 subparag. 10 (Article 10 subparag. 10 of the Act on the part of the third part of the arms)], Article 10 subparag. 10 (Article 12 subparag. 10 of the Act on the part of the third part of the bridge).]

B. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a re-determination of a disability grade with the Defendant on September 7, 2015 upon the Defendant’s request of a special medical examination for the determination of a disability judgment. The Defendant, on November 4, 2015, determined the Plaintiff’s final disability grade on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s present disability status does not fall under the upper right hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand over, and the front hand hand hand hand hand is not the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, and the movement restriction remains not the upper part of the upper part, but the upper part of the upper part hand hand hand hand hand is the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, but the upper part falls under the remaining part of the disability grade (Grade 10 grade 13) and the Plaintiff’s final disability grade was determined on the ground that it constitutes the remaining part of the disability grade (Grade 10 grade 13).”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was that the right hand hand hand over and right hand over after being subjected to the determination of the grade of disability of the 6th grade, and that there was only a defense at the right hand over, and that the special diagnosis conducted at the defendant's request.