1. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of re-determination of a disability grade against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff received medical care until December 23, 2013 with the Defendant’s approval, as follows: “Type II, the safety support level of the housing located in Daegu-dong-dong-gu, was cut down, and the occupational accident was crashed, and the safety support level of the housing was cut down, and the Plaintiff received medical care until December 23, 2013 with the Defendant’s approval.

B. The plaintiff is the above A.

After completing medical treatment as described in the paragraph, the Defendant filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant, and on January 16, 2014, the Defendant determined the disability grade of class VII (a person who has a common sense to the extent that he/she always has an impediment to labor other than that which is easy to be easily affected by a multiple-class certificate) with the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the request for examination, but was dismissed.

C. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for re-determination of a disability grade, and on November 22, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff’s disability grade constituted class 9 (a person whose work ability remains to a certain extent but whose work ability is considerably limited) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed a request for examination and a request for reexamination, but all of them were dismissed.

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】 The entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 4-1 through 4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes;

B. The plaintiff of grade 9 alleged that the degree of disability caused by the multi-level 9 was higher than that of grade 9 recognized by the defendant, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[The plaintiff's disability in the court's expert opinion (the department of anesthesia in Busan National University Hospital).