1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 23, 2009, the Plaintiff was receiving medical care due to an occupational accident on the part of “the 4-5 conical signboard escape certificate, and urology” while working as an electrical metal operator in the life-sustaining chemistry, a company, etc., and filed a claim for compensation for disability with the Defendant on May 31, 2010 upon completion of medical treatment.

On November 2, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision on the disability grade to the Plaintiff on November 2, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) stating that “If the Plaintiff is a person with disability under class 16 of class 12 and the remaining disability under class 11 is adjusted, the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under class 10” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is in the state of performing an operation to inserting a camera into the alley upper part of the breath because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to breathic breathy due to neutism, and is living with the same disorder as the chilling light.

The Plaintiff’s such forum dismissal falls under class 5 of the disability grade, which is “persons who are not engaged in work except for those who have a conspicuous disorder in chest long-term function,” and falls under class 6 of the disability grade, which is final adjustment of the disability grade (class 12 of the disability grade).

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s impediments related to the Plaintiff’s negoticy protection fall under class 11 of class 11 is unlawful.

B. In full view of the fact-finding by this court and the purport of the entire arguments as a result of the fact-finding by the Head of the relevant central university hospital, the Plaintiff’s urine storage function is normal. However, the Plaintiff’s urine storage function is a state of urology using urology with voluntary urology due to a relationship with which it is difficult to effectively urology due to a decline in urology, and the labor ability loss rate is 15% if based on general indoor and outdoor workers.

According to this, the plaintiff's protection plaza functions as a chest long-term.