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 March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff suffered from an occupational accident, and received medical care until February 23, 2016, with the Defendant’s approval, “a multi-functional brain damage, external fluorosis, multi-fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorials, right-hand fluor, right-hand fluor, 2, 4, 5, and 6.”

B. The plaintiff is the above A.

After receiving medical treatment as described in paragraph (1), the brain, mathal, and right shoulder were disabled, and on March 23, 2016, the Defendant claimed disability benefits to the Defendant. On June 17, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition that the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under class 10 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The actual contents of the tax are as follows: class 10 of class 14 (where the labor ability exists, but the symptoms of self-gropical fladism, etc. are medically recognized, the relevant person who remains after the fladism are medically recognized): The causal relationship is recognized, but it is likely to be improved due to incomplete damage.

(A) The actual impairment. The substance of the project shall be the right shoulderer: the exercise area shall be less than 430 degrees.

The actual contents of the tax shall not interfere with the state of chronological and tamping.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination and a request for reexamination, but all dismissed.

【Unsatisfy-founded facts, Gap’s entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

1) The Plaintiff is in a state in which labor is limited to a considerable degree due to the degradation of memory due to brain damage, degradation of intelligence, etc. (Article 9 subparag. 15). 2) The Plaintiff is in a state in which the identification of the right hand has been reduced due to the mematic damage.

However, the defendant did not consider all the above conditions of the plaintiff.

3 The restriction on the exercise of the right shoulder is clear due to the string of the right shoulder and the damage to the upper spathy.