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 December 5, 2015, when the Plaintiff was working in the restaurant “B” in the Namyang-ju city, the Plaintiff cleans anti-kills machines on December 5, 2015.

In the event of an accident involving hands-on on the machinery, the injury was inflicted on the machinery, such as “the upper part of the machinery, the upper part of the upper part of the body, the upper part of the body, the upper part of the body, the upper part of the body, and the upper part of the body,” etc.

B. After receiving medical care until August 28, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant, and received the judgment of class 6 of the disability grade on September 21, 2016.

C. Since then, the Defendant requested C Hospital to conduct a special medical examination of the Plaintiff for the procedure for disability grade re-determination against the Plaintiff. On July 11, 2019, after deliberation by the Integrated Review Committee, the Defendant issued a disposition to re-determine the Plaintiff’s disability grade to class 8 as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Basic Calculation] New 9th 10 General : A person who has lost one finger, or a person who has lost two fingers, including second fingers, or a person who has lost three fingers, other than second fingers; new 11th 9: a person who has failed to properly hold two fingers or two fingers other than one fingers; and a person who has failed to properly hold two fingers other than two fingers; [final calculation] applicable mutatis mutandis 8: A decision to apply mutatis mutandis the rating (1,2) by the method of conciliation / [based on recognition] / [Article 1,2], Eul evidence, Eul evidence 1, 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no disability after the first disposition of the disability grade.

The plaintiff's physical exercise scope is reasonable to be measured by active physical exercise methods, since there are damage to egalital and egalital damage to the right side of the plaintiff, lecture and construction opinion are also confirmed, since the loss suffered by the egalitant is clearly a cause of physical exercise disorder. However, at the time of special diagnosis, the scope of exercise is measured by means of unreasonable cutting down the plaintiff's egalitant by hand.