1. The Defendant’s disposition of disability ratings rendered against the Plaintiff on November 14, 2014 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 3, 1988, the Plaintiff registered as a person with a disability in the third degree of disability, and the Defendant, on May 1, 2014, provided guidance for the determination of disability ratings to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 32(3) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, upon the arrival of the time limit for reexamination of disability ratings.

B. On June 4, 2014, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis from a medical corporation affiliated with the medical foundation per capita (hereinafter “non-public hospital”) that “the degree of disability grade 0 to the high-ranking hospital, slot and satisfaction level 0” from a medical specialist outside the prison, and filed an application for disability rating on the 19th day of the same month, along with the written diagnosis of the above disability.

C. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant notified the National Pension Service, a specialized institution for disability rating (hereinafter “National Pension Service”) of the Plaintiff’s disability grade review upon request and notification of the Plaintiff’s disability grade review. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination of “class 4,” “class 6,” “class 6,” “class 6,” “class 4,” “class 4,” “class 4,” and “class 6,” “class 6,” “class 6,” and “class 4,” “class 4,” “class 6,” due to delay (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on October 29, 2014. The Defendant filed a second request with the National Pension Service to review the disability grade. However, on November 14, 2014, upon review under the same paragraph (c).

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is impossible to walk normally due to a disability that does not keep the right and is increased to knee persne.