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 January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was an employee of B Co., Ltd., who felled on the second floor height of the non-structure structure installed outside the building at the site of multi-household housing located in Ansan-si C (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. Afterwards, the Plaintiff received medical treatment until December 6, 2016, as recognized as occupational accidents by the Defendant’s thring of the so-called thrings of both sides, slots of both sides, spacks of the right-side sponsion, sponsion of the anti-sponsion of the right-side sponsion, and the right-side sponsym damage (hereinafter “the instant injury”). The Plaintiff claimed disability benefits for the instant injury to the Defendant.

C. On December 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to determine the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 12 subparag. 10 (Article 12 subparag. 10 among the three major sections of the Chinese bridge) according to the result of the examination conducted by the Integrated Examination Committee of the Daejeon Regional Headquarters that “the scope of exerciseable scope of the Plaintiff’s right-hand sprink of the Plaintiff is 80 degrees (the normal exercise scope: 110 degrees) and the Plaintiff’s right-hand sprink is below the standards for playground damage” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the physical function disorder caused by the Plaintiff’s right growth and right fall under a clear case, and thus, the exercise function disorder should have been measured through the method of measuring the Plaintiff’s active exercise pursuant to Article 47(3)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 263, Oct. 15, 2019; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule”). However, the Defendant is able to exercise the Plaintiff’s right growth and right fall through the method of measuring the exercise.