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 June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained from the Defendant the status in which the fluorial movement scope of the right shoulder section from the Defendant has been reduced by not less than 75% but less than 90%, and completed the registration of a disabled person upon the determination of a disability grade 6 in the grade disability.

B. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant requested a disability rating examination to the National Pension Service for the purpose of determining the Plaintiff’s disability grade, and notified the Plaintiff on June 19, 2014 that the Plaintiff constitutes disability ratings for the following reasons.

The functional disability in the criteria for disability ratings is limited to cases where a physical disability occurs due to damage to the string of the horse or the portrait boundary or due to a fluoral disease, etc., and where the whole function of the arms or legs is hindered, and it shall be not more than 3 (the extent that the ability remains to remain to a certain degree, but it shall not include a reduction loss or a fluoral disorder. The physical disability is indicated as the class 1 of the string of the right and the string of the string in the written opinion on the opinion on the delayed disability, the class 2 of the string in the left, the upper part of the upper part and the string in the left part, the class 4 of the string and the stringing part of the satisfaction. However, on June 9, 2014, it is evaluated as the class 4 of the string in the evaluation of the gluoral force on both sidess, and it is not recognized as the class of the disability in both sidess.

On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection with the Defendant. However, the Defendant notified the National Pension Service of the same purport as the previous examination result, and issued a decision on the non-degree of disability (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on July 29, 2014.

The plaintiff filed a petition with the Gyeong-do Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case, but Gyeong-do.