beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as follows. The second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance “, December 5, 201,” and the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance “grade 29, Nov. 29, 201” and “grade 1” are as stated in paragraph (1) of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (“grade 201, Nov. 29, 201”; therefore, they are cited as it is in accordance
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful in the following respect.
1) The Plaintiff is suffering from her real name due to damage to the gymnasium, dynasulosis, free physical therapy, etc. Therefore, when granting the Plaintiff a disability rating based on a re-physical examination, the Defendant was amended by Presidential Decree No. 25778, Nov. 24, 2014 and enforced from January 1, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Multilateral Products Act”).
(2) Although a person who did not apply for a physical examination for re-determination of a disability grade under Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Act on defoliants, he/she should have determined that his/her disability grade was lower than the disability grade standard by applying the amended disability grade classification mark to the disability grade before the amendment pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Act on defoliants. (2) Although a person who did not apply for a physical examination for re-determination of a disability under Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Act on defoliants could maintain his/her disability grade according to the previous provision, it is against the principle of equality by discriminating against a person who applied for
3. Based on the revised provisions of the defendant, it is judged that the plaintiff's high blood pressure falls short of the disability grade standard.