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 May 17, 201, the Plaintiff was an employee affiliated with Gae Construction Co., Ltd., and received medical care until February 28, 2013 under the Defendant’s medical care approval under the Defendant’s medical care, following the diagnosis of “a ductal safying blood with no open address, ductal safying, safying-to-safying blood with no open address in the two parts, safry-to-safying blood with no open address, safy-to-safy-to-safy-to-safying mental disorder, and safy-to-saf

After completing treatment, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on May 14, 2013.

B. On May 27, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on May 27, 2013 against the Plaintiff that “a person who, in turn, does not have any function or mental function other than an easy service remaining and has no capacity to engage in it (hereinafter “instant disposition”) falling under class 7 subparag. 4 of the disability grade.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on October 22, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion is in need of the nursing of another person at any time or from time to time in daily life due to an occupational accident. As such, “a person who is obliged to have a significant obstacle in his/her new function or mental function at all times” or “a person who has a significant obstacle in his/her new function or mental function at any time and needs nursing at any time,” and falls under class 1, 3, or 2,

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it did not accurately reflect the Plaintiff’s disability condition.

In full view of the criteria for the Defendant’s disability grade and the rate of loss of labor capacity in accordance with the Cloved Labor Capacity Evaluation Table, the Plaintiff can be said to have a working ability of 1/2 of the average average person.