1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade rendered to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff requested a review of ratings of visual disabilities and was judged as Grade V. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the adjustment of ratings of visual disabilities and was determined as Grade V again.

B. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the adjustment of the rating of visual disability, accompanied by a written disability diagnosis by the head of the ordinary university hospital (hereinafter “instant diagnosis”).

On November 5, 2014, it is measured by 0.06 of the Postal Correction Time Force and 0.04 of the Coordinate Correction Time Force.

The field survey conducted on October 7, 2014 remains within 10 degrees centering on both sides, and the normal opinion appears to be expressed in the previous stage test conducted on September 26, 2014, which was implemented on September 26, 2014.

C. On November 12, 2014, the Defendant requested the National Pension Service to conduct a precise examination of the Plaintiff’s visual disability. Based on the results of the Advisory Council of the National Pension Service, the Defendant decided the Plaintiff’s visual disability grade at Grade 5 on November 27, 2014 on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). Although the diagnosis of this case states that the eyesight of both sides is 0.06, 004, 0.04, 0.04, and only within 10 degrees centering on both sides, the diagnosis of this case states that the eyesight of both sides is not recognized as objective to fall under the present vision in consideration of the euperic photo submitted by the Plaintiff, the degree of visual loss in the field of visual field examination, treatment progress, etc., as well as the determination in Grade 5 on the ground that the visual vision of both eyes has decreased above 50% of the normal visual range, respectively. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the Plaintiff’s instant medical certificate, etc., on November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff’s friendly correction eyesight is 0.06, and 0.04, respectively, the Plaintiff’s visual disability constitutes class 1 (a person with a good eye 0.06 or less) according to the criteria for determining disability ratings publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. However, the Plaintiff’s visual disability constitutes class 3 (a person with a good eye 0.06 or less).