1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 9 (including the branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole pleadings, and there is no reflective evidence:

On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of disabled persons with the Defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities.

On December 27, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of class 5 of the heart disability to the Plaintiff on the ground that “as a result of a comprehensive examination of the submitted disability diagnosis and medical records, etc., it is confirmed that the heart surgery was implemented on November 2016.”

As a result of the review of submitted disability diagnosis documents, medical records records, video medical records, etc., it is stated in the disability diagnosis report that "the total points of the heart disorders are 29 points as of the time of the occurrence of expansion heart disease and the heart disorders therefrom," but it is stated that the heart transplant surgery on November 8, 2016 falls under class 5 of the heart disorders by performing the heart transplant surgery, and where a long-term transplant surgery, such as heart heart, pulmonary, liver, and expansion, is provided for in class 5 of the disability grade.

Therefore, I make a decision as Grade 5 of the Mental Health Disability.

B. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the above determination with the Defendant, and the Defendant requested the National Pension Service to review the disability grade, and accordingly, on March 22, 2017, on the part of the Plaintiff, on March 22, 2017, on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The statutes related to the disposition of this case are as shown in attached Form 1.

2. The plaintiff's assertion does not merely apply to "the transplant recipient," but also to "the heart function disorder continues despite the heart consciousness," and the physical part part of the body part may be a certain degree, but if he engages in any activity above, he/she will lead a normal daily life due to symptoms such as symptoms before the heart.