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 April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Plaintiff Company B, obtained medical care approval from the Defendant on the ground of an accident that falls short of the rain pipe on the left side of Apr. 26, 2017. After obtaining additional medical care approval from the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disability benefits for the “confiscing part of the face and the upper part,” which is the part of the disease unit.

B. On May 23, 2018, the Defendant, on May 23, 2018, determined the Plaintiff’s disability grade as Class 12 Subparagraph 9 (the remaining persons who interfere with the function of Section 9 of Section 1 among Section 3 of Section 1).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s exerciseable area on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s assertion is 220 degrees, and the Plaintiff’s exerciseable area is limited to not less than 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s exerciseable area and falls under class No. 13 of class 10 of the disability grade (the remaining person who has a significant obstacle to the function of the government). Thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. As to whether the Plaintiff’s exerciseable area under the left-hand check constitutes a person who has a significant obstacle to the function of the hall due to the restriction of not less than 1/2 of the exerciseable area, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, according to the result of the court’s entrustment of physical appraisal of the head of the Ganbuk University Hospital, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is legitimate on the same premise, on the ground that the passive exercise area under the left-hand check is limited to not less than 1/4 of the exerciseable area under Section 35, as follows, and the Plaintiff’s exerciseable area is limited to not less than 1/4 of the exerciseable area under Section 9 of class 12 (the remaining person who

The plaintiff and the plaintiff.