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 February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff was an employee of static Fash Co., Ltd., who was engaged in the installation of a special high-tension cable cable, and was suffering from a disaster involving the said hand, i.e., cutting off the line by using the electric dynamics, and facing the right hand hand.

B. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff provided medical care by November 3, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant injury”) by suffering “the alley of fluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluor,” and filed a claim for disability benefits that there is a decrease in physical restriction

C. As to the Plaintiff on November 25, 2015, the Defendant determined that the restriction on the movement of the right elbow joints is below the grade and that there was no outcome of decrease in the right mar margin. As to the restriction on the movement of the right hurbs, class 9 of class 12, “the remaining person who has impeded the function of one joints among the three joints of the right hurbs,” and the final disability grade was determined as class 12 by recognizing the joints of the right hurbs as class 10 of class 14, “the person who has left the part of the national part of the right hurbs,” as class 10 of class 14.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that his disability grade was lower.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the disease of this case was caused by the injury and disease of this case, and the pain and sacrife are added to the right side. Thus, the disposition of this case which did not properly evaluate the obstacles to the power of this case is unlawful.

B. (1) Determination 1) Article 53(1) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “The function of the relevant system is hindered.”