1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part pertaining to 3. conclusion), except for supplementing or adding the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Supplementary and additional Plaintiff asserts as follows.

The proviso of the Enforcement Decree of this case, even though there is no provision on the limitation of fundamental rights of the people, has been actively restricted by prescribing the contents that limit fundamental rights, thereby making a new legislation beyond the stage of embodying the contents

Therefore, the above provision deviates from the limitation of delegated legislation against the principle of statutory reservation.

In addition, the right to receive disability benefits has the nature of social fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and the proviso of the Enforcement Decree of this case is the source and substance limitation of the right to receive disability benefits, and it does not recognize the appropriateness of the means, and performs public

It seriously infringes on the individual rights of the subjects who have suffered more than one disability, thereby infringing on the basic social rights or equality rights of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

As examined in the first instance judgment cited by this Court, Article 54 of the former Public Officials Pension Act, which is a legal provision of the authority to receive the instant proviso of the Enforcement Decree, stipulates the scope of delegation individually by delegation of the said delegation by using terms that can accurately identify the content of delegation, as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, and Article 54 of the former Public Officials Pension Act, which is a legal provision of the said proviso, has exceeded the limitation of the literal meaning of “joint treatment of disability when two or more disabilities exist in the Dong,” which is the content of delegation.