1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. "Order of the court of first instance" in paragraph (1) of the same Article.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) Article 18 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act shall be applied to the fifth fifth decision of the court of the first instance as "Article 27 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act".

(2) Article 89 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities shall be amended to "Article 84 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities" in the 9th tenth sentence of the first instance court.

(3) Five (5) of the first five (11) judgments of the court of first instance shall be subject to the application of paragraph (4).

(4) The rating of a person with disabilities in conciliation shall be deleted from ten (11) of the decision of the first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion does not mean that the Plaintiff’s intellectual disability does not fall under any one of “congenital recognition low” or “intelligent low-quality after becoming an adult due to causes such as cerebral damage,” but does not mean that the Plaintiff’s intellectual disability does not fall under the intellectual disability grade criteria as stipulated by the law, by comprehensively taking account of various data, such as the result of the diagnosis against the Plaintiff, the details of the Plaintiff’s living record book, etc.

Nevertheless, the first instance court's decision is unfair because it is unclear that the cause of the Plaintiff's intellectual disability is based on some expressions of the disposition of this case.

In addition, in full view of various evidence, the Plaintiff’s intellectual disability did not meet the intellectual disability grade standards stipulated by law, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

B. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. In the instant disposition, the first instance court’s determination on the premise that the Plaintiff’s intellectual disability does not fall under any one of the “congenital recognition low” or “in cases where the Plaintiff became an adult due to causes such as brain damage,” cannot be deemed the criteria for determining persons with disabilities.