The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 2003, the Plaintiff was registered as a person with disabilities with intellectual disability 1st degree (a person with less than 35 intelligence index whose daily life and social life are considerably difficult to adapt and make it necessary to protect others during one’s life).

B. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for a disability grade review (service re-determination).

C. Upon having requested the National Pension Service to examine the Plaintiff’s disability grade 2 (a person with intelligence index of between 35 and less than 50 who can train simple behavior in daily life, and has an occupation that does not require special skills, without complicated supervision and assistance) as follows. On April 18, 2017, the Defendant decided to grade 2 of intellectual disability as follows.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Contents of review and decision] The results of disability diagnosis and clinical psychology tests are less than 45 intelligence indices, and considering the nature of learning and development of subjects in daily life records, behavioral characteristics and comprehensive opinions, simple behavior training can be conducted in daily life, and occupation which does not require special skills is recognized as having no complicated degree of supervision and assistance. Accordingly, it is determined as class 2 of intellectual disability.

The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, but on August 1, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision of class 2 of intellectual disability as the instant disposition to the Plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but the appeal was dismissed on October 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The National Pension Service upon request of the Defendant did not perform any clinical evaluation of the Plaintiff even though he/she received the first grade diagnosis of intellectual disability through the examination and evaluation report (Evidence A No. 4) by the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination of the Plaintiff’s assertion.