1. The Defendant’s decision on July 14, 2014 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed of the thringral dystyposis on both sides at the Hospital B, and was subject to the dyspology of the mission, which is a body of the two sides, at the Gatoo University Seoul Women’s Hospital (hereinafter “Seoul Women’s Hospital”) on December 20, 2012. On March 12, 2014, at the roadside Hospital, the Plaintiff was subject to the re-crypology of the mission, which is a high-speed body, on the right side, at the Gao Hospital on April 7, 2014, and was subject to the re-crypology of the mission, which is a high-speed body, on the right side.

B. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the disability grade examination of the unpaid disability on the basis of a disability examination certificate issued by the Seoul Mother Hospital. The Defendant’s request for examination to the National Pension Service, which determined otherwise than the disability grade, and accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on June 11, 2014, that it constitutes a disability grade.

C. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant, and the Defendant requested a reexamination to the National Pension Service, and the same result of reexamination as before “the Plaintiff does not meet the standards for rating of non-grade disability” was sent. On July 14, 2014, the Defendant presented the following grounds for the disposition to the Plaintiff and rendered a decision in excess of the disability grade.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The data submitted indicate that the re-exploitation of the inserted materials after the defluencation of the mission, which is a high-speed pipe, in December 2012, 2012, was carried out in April 2014. However, it is not recognized as inferior after the re-exploitation of the mission in X-RAY implemented in May 2014, and it is not recognized as inferior after the re-exploitation of the mission in the right part of X-RAY, which was carried out in May 2014. The fact that there is no dispute [based on recognition] that it does not fall under the standards for defluction grade because it is not recognized as an influent position that may reduce the scope of the movement by 50% or more, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's 1 disability grade asserted by the parties is to perform re-operation.