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 28, 2013, while serving as a worker of the B industry company, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident involving a bridge to the steel pipe while moving the steel pipe at the work site (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff suffered injury (hereinafter “the instant injury”) from “the opening frame of the front and right opening frame” due to the instant accident, and received medical treatment from the Defendant by March 31, 2014, and filed a claim for compensation for disability with the Defendant on the same day.

C. On April 7, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that determined the disability grade to Grade 9 by applying mutatis mutandis the method of the adjustment of the final disability grade, after determining the disability grade according to the right salutism as Grade 10 grade 14, and the disability grade according to the right salutism as Grade 11 grade 10.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff caused the disaster of this case caused severe damage to the right table, and even after the treatment is completed, the physical scope of the right table 25 degrees, which is limited to 3/4 or more than the normal physical exercise range of 110 degrees, and thus falls under class 8 of disability grade 7, and if it is applied mutatis mutandis by the method of grade 11-10 and adjustment due to the restriction on the right-side joint exercise, it constitutes the disability grade 7. However, the defendant's disposition of this case assessed as class 9 of disability grade applied mutatis mutandis is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Since there is no dispute as to whether the disability grade of the Plaintiff’s right-hand part is class 10, the issue of this case is the assessment of the Plaintiff’s right-hand part of the restriction on the exercise of the exercise of the right-hand part and the determination of the disability grade accordingly.

In this case, Gap evidence No. 4 is examined.