The decision-making disposition rendered by the Defendant on May 10, 2019 by the Plaintiff, such as disability, shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff was diagnosed with the “falchial chilling and trauma infection” due to an automobile accident in the past, and was measured on January 4, 2019 at 0.02 in the left place.

On February 27, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for disability ratings based on the aforementioned diagnosis and eyesight measurement. On February 27, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision out of the rating of visual disability on the ground that there was no objective opinion that the degree of visual disability falls under the degree of disability, in full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s visual disability rating was determined based on the results of the examination by the National Pension Service on February 27, 2019 on the ground that there was no objective opinion that the degree of visual disability falls under the degree of disability, in view of the following: (b) the visual state of the Mali-brothy prosecutor; (c) the climatic state of the Mali-bromoththy colon; (d)

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an objection, however, on May 10, 2019 according to the National Pension Service’s review result, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s vision was out of the visual disability rating on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vision was 0.15 on the record from 2008 to 2015, and thereafter, the medical record price was not submitted to verify the progress of treatment for the aggravation of eyesight, and that recently, the Defendant determined that the visual disability rating was out of the visual disability rating on the ground that the visual disability level was not recognized to the extent that the visual disability level was not deemed to meet the minimum disability grade (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On October 2, 2019, the plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the administrative appeals commission, but the decision to dismiss it was made.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion of legitimacy of the overall argument and disposition of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence No. 1 and Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the overall purport of the argument is legitimate. Thus, the Plaintiff’s schilling diagnosis was measured with 0.02, thereby falling under the criteria for determination of degree of disability.