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 May 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the disability grade 1 (the eyesight of a good eye less than 0.2) with respect to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2017.

B. On May 29, 2018, the Plaintiff received from the Seoul National University Hospital, from the Seoul National University Hospital, an application for the adjustment of the disability rating from the Defendant on the same day, with a written disability diagnosis stating, “The Plaintiff had the rash opic history in the vicinity of the Mali-ri, and was in the middle of both sides as of May 29, 2018, due to the change of the yellow half of both sides of both sides, the safety balance of both sides of both sides, the maximum corrected eyesight, and the safety of the maximum corrected eyesight.”

C. On July 17, 2018, the Defendant applied for the determination of disability grades 5 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff filed an application for adjustment after the determination of the 2017 visual disability grade 5 (the eyesight of good eye 0.2). However, considering the following as a whole, the Defendant’s determination of disability grades 5 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was made on the ground that there is no objective aggravation to recognize the state of deterioration caused by both eyes, based on the following factors: (a) the view of the visual disability and the condition of the network and reflect of the visual part of the visual inspection of the light livers, the ground for the examination of the visual power level; and (b) the degree of marology and treatment progress.”

On August 2, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Defendant on August 2, 2018. However, on August 29, 2018, the Defendant examined and reviewed existing data and additional data, etc., and diagnosed by the reflectivity, reflectivity, etc. of both sides on the disability diagnosis letter. The visual disability of the Plaintiff is not recognized on the ground that, in full view of the following factors: (a) the eyesight of two snows was measured on October 25, 2014 and the 0.1 of the coordinatess, and the recent period from the measurement of the vision 0.125 on October 2014, 2014; (b) the central state of the ethopical part of the ethopical part of the ethic partic body examination; (c) the level of vision in the ethic part of the ethic part of the ethic part of the ethic part of the