1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff, while taking part in the reorganization of the workplace at the workplace, was receiving medical care until March 24, 2015, and filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant.

On May 14, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff under class 12 No. 10 of the disability grade pursuant to the review of the following: “The Plaintiff’s 14th of May 2015: “The 65th of the movement scope of the Fevour Madlese, the Bevour’s Bevour and the Cevour’s Cevoires devo

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The scope of exerciseable scope of the Plaintiff’s normal growth table is 110 degrees, and the Plaintiff’s exerciseable scope of the right is merely 25 degrees and thus falls under class 7 of class 8 of the disability grade, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination Gap evidence Nos. 5-7 (including paper numbers), and the result of the request for physical examination to Korea University Cancer Hospital by this Court, the result of the request for physical examination and supplementation is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff constitutes a person whose physical area is limited by not less than 3/4 among the three sections of the three sections of one bridge (Grade VIII No. 7) and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it.

(In light of the above, the appraisal doctor B, who performed the above physical appraisal, presented his opinion that the degree of disability that will be caused in the future would be reasonable under class 7 of class 8 of the disability grade, but it cannot be calculated on the basis of presumption of disability that will be caused in the future, so the appraisal doctor B’s above opinion cannot be adopted. Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 3 and the result of this court’s request for the supplementation of physical appraisal of the hospital within Korea-U.S., the Plaintiff’s physical appraisal of the hospital within Korea-U.S., as 65 degrees, is limited by more than 1/4 of the physical appraisal area of one bridge (Class 12 No. 10).

(e).