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 September 17, 2014, when the Plaintiff was working in Company B, the Plaintiff sustained the injury of “on the part of the upper part of the hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacks and hacker’s upper part of the left hand hacker’s hacks and the left hand hacker’s hacker’s hacks and the left hand hacker’s hacker’s hacks and hacks on the left hand.”

B. Upon obtaining the Defendant’s medical care approval, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on February 4, 2015, after receiving medical care until January 20, 2015. On February 26, 2015, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s disability status constituted “a person who has lost part of his/her severe fingers” and determined the disability grade as class 13-6.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has a disability falling under class 10 of disability grade 10 because the exercise scope of the left-hand part part part of the middle part of the left-hand part and the part part of the sub-section is limited to at least 1/2, respectively, in addition to the disability of the left-hand part of disability grade 13.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s final disability grade falls under class 9, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The key issue of the instant case is the assessment of a disability grade with respect to the scope of exerciseable scope of the Plaintiff’s left-hand tolerance and the determination of a disability grade accordingly.

Examining the instant case, as acknowledged in full view of the statement No. 1 of Eul, the result of the physical appraisal commission to the president of the Gyeongnam University Hospital and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of each request for the supplementation of each evidence, the Defendant’s advisory opinions are expressed that the scope of the movement of the Plaintiff’s left-hand balance 60 degrees and 50 degrees respectively, and the physical appraisal of this Court also constitutes the movement scope of each of the above sections.