1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of disposition (based on recognition), Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 4-1 through 4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. On March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff received medical treatment until December 23, 2013 with the Defendant’s approval, as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s work of dismantling the ceiling B-dong housing in Daegu-gu, with the safety support cost cut down, “Type B-B-type, which suffered from the type of mincation franchising in the border diameter, the left-hand franchisium franchising franchising, the blood franchising franchising in the upper left-hand franchising, the left-hand franchising franchising, the left-hand franchising franchising

B. After completing the above medical care, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.

On January 16, 2014, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade Nos. 7 subparag. 4 [a person who has a common sense to the extent that the Plaintiff may always interfere with labor other than the easily friendly work as a co-ordinating unit].

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the request for examination, but was dismissed.

C. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for re-determination of a disability grade.

On November 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff constitutes a disability grade under class 15 of class 9 (which remains to a certain degree of labor ability, but which considerably limited the scope of occupation available due to the same passage).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review and reexamination, but all of which were dismissed.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there are physical disability (Grade 7 applied mutatis mutandis) in the left-hand heading of the disability grade (Grade 8 No. 7) and the left-hand heading of the 1, 2 metreshing of the disability grade (Grade 11 No. 10 of the disability grade). The plaintiff's assertion that there are multiple pains (Grade 9 No. 15 of the disability grade).

The multiple sub-competence group is not ordinarily derived from physical disability, but from different departments of disability. Therefore, one class of physical disability is given to physical disability.