1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade against the Plaintiff on February 8, 2013 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 21, 2012, when the Plaintiff was employed as a worker employed by a limited technology corporation, the Plaintiff suffered from the accident that caused the damage to the machinery, and received the medical care approval from the Defendant by the injury and disease of the “an openness frame-strekes around the ethical frame and small strekes, the alley of the upper right 4 balance, and the artificial wave between the upper right 2-3 and the upper right 4, and received the medical care until January 17, 2013.

B. On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for disability benefits regarding the restriction on the scope of fluoral exercise range arising from handouts and the right 1, 2013, and on February 2, 2013, the Defendant determined that “one handouts and two handouts are not properly used” under class 8 class 4 granted to “one handouts and two handouts,” but the instant disposition was taken to determine that the handouts are below the rating in accordance with the opinion of the panel of advisory doctors and advisory doctors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant did not raise any objection to the degree of disability of the Plaintiff’s alleged fingers, but the instant disposition that otherwise determined was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability grade is calculated to be class 7 under Article 53(2)3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, on the ground that “in the case of the impairment of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the third part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of

B. Determination 1) In light of the fact that the scope of the exercise of the Plaintiff’s grandchildren, which was confirmed as a result of the physical appraisal of a hospital of the same court, is limited to at least 130∑ (the normal 180∑ 180∑ 180· 1/4 compared to the normal gate), the degree of disability falls under class 12-9, and the Plaintiff’s final disability grade added up to the right handout impairment falls under class 7, and thus, the disposition of this case otherwise determined.