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 August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was an employee belonging to Atech Construction Co., Ltd., and was employed by a panel during the construction site executed by the said company on the part of the defect repair, and caused occupational accidents. On August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on the ground that “The instant injury and disease” was treated by medical treatment until August 10, 2016, and then claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on August 16, 2016.

B. On August 30, 2016, the Defendant, based on the result of the passive movement conducted on August 30, 2016, deemed that “the remaining person (e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the

C. The result of the Plaintiff’s attention, the Defendant’s advice, and the result of the Plaintiff’s physical examination of this Court’s physical examination is as follows.

The fact that there is no dispute over Grade 12, 10, 8, 12, 10, 8, 12, 10, 110, 8, 12, 15, 15, 15, 15, 5, 5, 10, 20, 30 20 20 5, 30 20 20 5, 30 40 20 0, 15 15 10 10 80 10 80 10 80 80 10 80 80 80 80 80 80 10 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 10 10 10 3, 10 3, Eul 1, and 5 5 200 20 30

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the restriction on the plaintiff's exercise of satisfaction is based on the establishment of annual installments after the operation, and since the cause of exercise function disorder is medically clear, the disability grade should have been determined according to the result of active exercise. However, it is a passive exercise.