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 November 9, 2010, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the East Construction Industry, was at the construction site of Dongyang Construction Co., Ltd., and was at the left-hand bridge, and was suffering from a disaster of cutting down the bones of the left-hand mouth and the sloping of the sloping, and was receiving medical treatment until September 30, 2013, and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.

B. On November 14, 2013, the Defendant determined the final disability grade 9 to apply mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) class 10 of class 1 of class 11 (or class 10 of class 1 of class 11 of class 1 of class 1 of class 1 of class 1 of class 1 of the person who was unable to properly use his/her development function disorder to the Plaintiff at least 1/2 of class 35 of class 10 of class 10 of class 10 of the person whose development function disorder to the Plaintiff falls under the scope of at least 1/2 of class 35 of class 14 of class 10 of class 10 of class 14 (the remaining person who has a significant obstacle to the function of one section among the third sections of one bridge).

C. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant after the completion of the additional medical care, but the Defendant, on March 5, 2015, rendered a decision on the disability benefit site payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2015 as follows: “The Plaintiff’s physical exercise scope of each unit is 130 degrees, 0.5 cm, 0.5 cm, and 45 degrees, which were diagnosed as the exercise scope of each unit, are below the standard, and the final grade is not higher than that of class 9 in the previous determined disability grade.”

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion’s opinion, in the case of the Plaintiff’s left-hand boom, the exercise scope is limited to not less than 3/4 of the exerciseable area due to 25 degrees (15, 0, 0, 10, 10), and the disability grade No. 8 subparag. 7 is deemed to fall under class 8, and the left-hand breath disability (Class 11 subparag. 10) is considered.