1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. A. Around June 2017, the Plaintiff received a disability diagnosis from a medical specialist of the department of mental health in B Hospital to the effect that the Plaintiff constitutes a mental disorder due to a stimulative disorder, a stimulative disorder in the process of being present, or a severe stimul, and applied for registration of the disabled (mental) to the Defendant.

B. On July 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the part of the Plaintiff on the ground that “The record of a highly stimulative addition that conforms to the diagnosis of a stimulative disorder on the medical record book cannot be confirmed, and the symptoms of a stimulative, intentional, behavioral, and accident disorder continue to exist or frequently repeated due to a stimulative disorder, and the ensuing function and ability disorder is not recognized as a stimulative assistance.”

C. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the above decision with the Defendant.

On August 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the grade of mental disorder to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The diagnosis name of the disability diagnosis as a result of reexamination is indicated as a stimulative disorder, but it is not confirmed that the stimulation is not confirmed,” on June 2017, considering the fact that the diagnosis name of the dementia in Alstimer’s disease is confirmed in the diagnostic certificate, other treatment details, function level, etc. in the clinical symptoms and symptoms, the Defendant rendered a decision on the grade of mental disorder other than the mental disorder on the ground that “the case where the symptoms of excessive behavior, climate, desire, behavior, and accident are not obvious, and where the symptoms of the stimulative disorder are not recognized as continuing or frequent, and it is not recognized as having the function and ability disorder thereby.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the appeal was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul 2 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is one year or more of the two extreme disorder.