1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where the part stipulated in paragraph (2) below is dismissed, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On May 20, 2016, the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance deleted “the Plaintiff” from “the third part,” and added “the Plaintiff on May 20, 2016.”

B. The judgment of the court of first instance is 2.Ra.

2) B) The Plaintiff was issued with a disability certificate stating that the exercise scope of a bridge on the left side of the Plaintiff constituted a reduction of 75% or more from the doctor B as follows. However, in light of the above facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by compiling the above evidence, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for disability rating due to a lack of tolerance in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the instant disposition that was determined otherwise than the Plaintiff’s disability grade is legitimate. ① As a result of the Plaintiff’s physical examination entrustment to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s physical examination of the disability grade reduced by 80 degrees out of 110 degrees in normal exercise scope and reduced by 73%, and thus, the scope of the exercise scope of a bridge on the left side of the Plaintiff’s surface is not reduced by 75% or more, and the Plaintiff does not fall under the category of the 6th degree in the body grade 3 of the Plaintiff’s disability grade 6.

According to the above physical appraisal commission result, since there was a medical opinion that the present disability after the operation on November 2, 2015 is highly respected, the scope of movement on the left side of the plaintiff is also at the time of the disposition in this case.