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 May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was working in Samsung Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., and was diagnosed by both sides, strings, and chemical images from snow due to occupational accidents, and received medical care until July 21, 2014, and received class 8 of the disability grade around July 21, 2014.

B. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant upon receipt of the doctor’s opinion that the maximum correction time of the additional draft 0.4.

C. On October 14, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits on the ground that the final disability grade was determined as Class 8 (the real name of a single eye or one eye was less than 0.02) and there was no existing disability grade and change.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant's disposition of this case which judged the plaintiff's disability grade 8 on a different premise is unlawful, since the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's disability status is the real name and the opportune of 0.6 and the opportune of opportune should be judged as disability grade 7.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. (i) Medical opinion: (a) In the prosecutor that was implemented on August 26, 2014 by the Plaintiff Note on Plaintiff’s note, the euthanal calendar is 0.4, the euthanal calendar is 0.4, and the euthanal calendar is ophy, and the euthanal calendar is not corrected, and there is little possibility of the euthanal vision in the future.

Although there was no abnormal opinion that the correction trial force of the previous draft and the subsequent draft physical examination might be 0.4 0.4, it was stated as 0.4 that the maximum correction trial force was stated as 0.4 as it was based on the patient's subjective statement.

Shed the Defendant’s advice ① It is confirmed that the friendly design is the state of ophyphism in the event of a disaster, but the design needs to be supplemented by data on the maximum correction of ophys.

(2) It shall be confirmed as opical angle of opportune, but the opportune has not been placed in a opportune, which may affect the opportune.