1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 8, 2009, the Plaintiff was at the time of the sale of the display goods at “B” stores running a repair business of consumer goods and wholesale and retail business, and the Plaintiff was at the time of the sale of the display goods for the purpose of business closure, and the Plaintiff was at the time of moving back the goods inside the store without discovering the exhausters, and the Plaintiff was at the time of a disaster that faced with the right snow at the bottom of the exhaustr (hereinafter “the instant disaster”).

The Plaintiff suffered from the injury and disease (hereinafter “the injury and disease in this case”) of the “heat morry morry” and “the primary morry melting morry” due to the instant accident, and received medical treatment until June 30, 2014 after obtaining approval from the Defendant for the instant injury and disease as an occupational accident.

B. On June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation for disability with the Defendant on July 6, 2015, as a result of the test of force of “the safe operation of the friendly nuclear power, the opportun angle of the opportune of the opportune, and the decline of the opportune within five degrees of the opportune,” which was measured by C Hospital on June 29, 2015. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff the second grade higher based on the following disability grades (hereinafter “previous disability grade determination”).

- Basic Calculation: Class 1 of grade II in general (persons whose real name is one eye and whose eyesight of other eye is not more than 0.02) - Subparagraph 2 of grade XIII in general (persons who remains franchisium or vision franchisium in one eye) - Final Calculation: Grade II in addition (less than persons whose real name is two eyes);

C. After that, the Defendant’s headquarters insurance research division conducted an investigation into the Plaintiff as part of the investigation into the employees who fall under class 1 to 3 of the trial ability disability grade.

On February 24, 2017, the Insurance Investigation Department of the Defendant’s headquarters notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation, and the content thereof is trusted that the Plaintiff’s corrective vision of the Plaintiff measured from January 16, 2014 to June 23, 2014, which was close to the healing date, continued to remain 0.1.0, and that there was no proof of aggravation of symptoms that might have deteriorated the friendlyness after the healing date, and that there was no proof of the outcome of the clinical test of the Plaintiff measured on June 29, 2015.