1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's argument in the trial under Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

(The grounds alleged in the trial in the appeal by the Defendant are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Defendant in the first instance court, except for the allegations in paragraph (2) below, and even if all evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial were examined in the first instance court, the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Defendant’s assertion is justifiable). The medical records of the SamsungSeoul Hospital, which the Plaintiff submitted at the time of the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits, are indicated as 1.7 on April 19, 2013 in the report of the medical records of Samsung Seoul Hospital, which was submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits, and the number of copies is sufficiently able to be considered as not only normal daily life but also lighting, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a disability under subparagraph 5

Judgment

According to the record Eul's evidence No. 6, the fact that the plaintiff was recorded as 1.7 at the Treadiestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestest of April 18, 2013 of the plaintiff, may be acknowledged. However, according to the result of the entrustment of the medical record with the head of Seoul Medical Center (Seoul Medical Center C) at the first instance court (the Seoul Medical Center C), the plaintiff was found to fall under the cardio-highestest color of the ancient Do or the middle do at the time of the diagnosis on August 12, 2014, and Article 45 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 6.b. of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

According to paragraphs 6 and 7, a person whose labor ability is remaining to an extent of 10/2 of the average average person due to a chronic renal failure or a person with chronic renal failure, a person who is in the state of a compromise after the mid-term cirrosis, a serious renal failure or a serious renal failure of the middle-do shall be subject to subparagraph 5 of Article 7, and the labor ability remains to a certain extent, but due to a chest long-term disability.