1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The defendant's disability determination disposition against the plaintiff on July 17, 2014 shall be revoked.

2.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 2 to No. 4) in addition to adding the following contents to the reasoning of the disposition, the plaintiff's assertion, and medical opinion in this case. Thus, this part citing the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

As a result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal of the medical records to the director of the Central University Black Hospital, the Plaintiff is essential to protect medical professionals since it is necessary to conduct three times a week and four hours a time a event, and to verify the constant blood pressure and the patient’s status during the administration.

- The Plaintiff’s life maintenance and extension is difficult unless he is able to do so because it falls under five chronic beanne diseases.

The Plaintiff is deemed to have a labor force not exceeding 15ml/minutes, and according to medical evaluation standards for the assessment of working ability of a national basic livelihood security recipient (Enforcement on March 19, 2014), the Plaintiff constitutes “unworking ability”.

Therefore, according to the evaluation standards announced by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, 100% of the disability rate and 100% of the loss rate of labor ability.

-pact No. 2, No. 4 seems appropriate because it is inappropriate to apply the 5-stage chronic renal failure patients to the chronic renal failure, and a person who requires a tiny is in need of another person's protection from time to time.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court and the evidence submitted by the first instance court to determine the legitimacy of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff is recognized as constituting a higher disability grade than that of class 5, which the Defendant assessed against the instant disposition.

Therefore, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

① Under Article 51 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (Amended by Act No. 13387, Jun. 22, 2015); Article 45 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and Article 23 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, disability ratings shall arise.