1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s decision on disability ratings rendered to the Plaintiff on May 12, 2014 is revoked.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted intellectual disability and filed an application for registration of disabled persons under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, and the Defendant requested the National Pension Service to examine the degree of disability of the Plaintiff.

B. On March 27, 2014, the National Pension Service requested the Plaintiff to submit supplementary data, other than the disability diagnosis certificate (which appears to be the same content as the disability diagnosis certificate (Evidence A2) re-written as of May 26, 2014) submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the said application, as of March 27, 2014, such as BGT inspection (BGT) and the house-related person inspection (HTP) and portrait, middle, and high-ranking life records, and the Plaintiff additionally submitted the aforementioned data.

C. After examining the foregoing data, on May 9, 2014, the National Pension Service rendered a decision out of the grade on the ground that “The current state of disability is determined by the mental opinion, considering the progress and clinical dogs being treated as a mental disorder on the medical records, living attitude in the school life register, degree of academic achievement, etc.” and notified the Defendant of the decision that the Plaintiff constitutes the category of intellectual disability other than the intellectual disability (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Accordingly, on May 12, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on May 12, 2014 that the Plaintiff constitutes the category of intellectual disability (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., in a situation where the Plaintiff’s daily life is difficult without continuous protection and management of his/her guardian less than 30 with the intelligence index, and thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful even though it constitutes at least Grade 3 intellectual disability.

In addition, the instant disposition that judged the Plaintiff from the category of intellectual disability without a face-to-face treatment that is essential in the determination of disability caused by intellectual disability is unlawful in the course of its procedure.

(b).