1. The Defendant’s disposition of disability ratings rendered against the Plaintiff on May 30, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In 198, the Plaintiff registered as a disabled person by being judged as Grade 2 intellectual disability in light of 1988. In 2004 and 2006, it was determined as Grade 1 of the duplicate disability of Grade 2 and Grade 2 intellectual disability, and around 2008, it was determined as Grade 1 of the duplicate disability of Grade 2 and Grade 3 (Intelligent Index 62).

B. On March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to adjust the disability grade accompanied by a medical certificate issued by the Life University Movables Hospital, the intelligence index of which was assessed to 42, and the Defendant requested the National Pension Service under Article 32 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. On April 17, 2014, the National Pension Service determined both the Plaintiff’s mental disorders and intellectual disorders as Grade 3, and around that time, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the determination that the Plaintiff should be determined as Grade 3 mental disorders and Grade 3 intellectual disorders as Grade 2, as a result of the said determination.

C. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the above decision, and the Defendant requested reexamination to the National Pension Service, and on May 30, 2014, the National Pension Service rendered a decision that “The Plaintiff’s intelligence index on the certificate of disability diagnosis issued in 2008 was assessed to 62, and there is no outcome of aggravation of intellectual disability due to brain damage, brain disease, etc., and there is no aggravation of function due to symptoms of mental disorder.” On May 30, 2014, the Defendant re-determined and notified the Plaintiff of the disability grade 2 with the disability grade 3 and 3 with the disability grade as a result of the above decision.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s Nos. 1, 11, Eul’s No. 1-4, and Eul’s No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was an obstacle to intellectual development from the time of birth, and recently, the intelligent index was over 42, and the social index was overall about 46.38 in the evaluation of social well-being.