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. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was at the construction site of B Co., Ltd. (former C Co., Ltd.) on the part of “I,” and was at the part of “I,” and was at the part of “I,” the Plaintiff was at risk of causing damage to two parts of the material slavedro, and was at the part of the injury, after being recognized as the injury and disease, the Plaintiff received medical care until November 17, 2017.

B. On September 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits on the ground of a qualitative mental disorder, etc. On December 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered, on December 8, 2017, a disposition to determine the disability grade No. 9 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), following the adjustment of rating, that the Plaintiff had disabilities falling under class Nos. 15 (where the remaining labor service is limited to a certain degree) and class Nos. 14 subparag. 10 (where the remaining work is limited to a national level) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Accordingly, on December 11, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a lump-sum amount of disability benefits 45,179,460 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. Considering the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, etc., the Plaintiff’s disability status falls under class 7 subparag. 4 (only to the extent that the Plaintiff’s disability condition is not easy to remain) but the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff’s disability status as class 9 and class 15. The instant disposition is illegal disposition that does not fit the Plaintiff’s objective disability status.

B. According to the medical opinion on the plaintiff's disability grade Gap, evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 4-2, and each of the results of the first instance court's entrustment of the medical record appraisal on the head of the F Hospital and the head of G Hospital, the medical opinion on the plaintiff's disability grade is presented.