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 April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff felled at a new construction site and sustained the injury of “the first Trist Crist Crist and Trist and Trist and Trist and Trist, the first Trist and Trist and Trist, the second Trist and Trist, the second Trist and Trist, the upper left side, the upper part of the upper part of the Trist and Crist and the right side of the Trist,” while performing waterproof work at a new construction site.

A state of disability, ① 19.00% of a plephical disorder (19.00% of a plephical disorder (27.00% of a plephical disorder) - Balutism and consultation opinion: A plephical 11-Talphical 2: A remaining part of a plephical 11-Talphical 2, and a remaining part of a lephical 11-2 (2); a person who has a remaining part of a lephical lephal 11-12 of a lephebal 11-12) (2) a person who has a remaining part of a lephical lephical lephical 11-2 of a lephebalian 12(s)

B. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff closed medical care for the above injury and filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on the ground that the injury left. On November 29, 2016, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s disability grade shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff by applying mutatis mutandis the method of adjustment, after recognizing the disability status and calculating the basis thereof, as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The following facts are without dispute; Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5; Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4; the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition that determined the Defendant’s disability grade 10 for the following grounds as asserted by the Plaintiff is unlawful.

1) In determining the scale disorder, the detailed criteria for determining the disability grade by physical parts under [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “the detailed criteria in this case”).

It is merely an administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs and thus does not have any effect to bind the court.