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 July 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of disabled persons with the Defendant, and the Defendant requested the National Pension Service to examine the Plaintiff’s disability grade.

On August 10, 2016, the National Pension Service rendered a decision to exclude the Plaintiff from the disability grade on the grounds of the following examination results, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the aforementioned examination results.

The diagnosis name of the disability diagnosis report is written as the early illness, but it is not possible to confirm the obvious symptoms of mental illness corresponding to the diagnosis of the early illness, such as the refund of the medical record area and the network, and considering the degree of use of drugs, the progress of treatment, etc., it is not recognized as the function and ability disorder caused by the early illness.

B. The Plaintiff’s objection against the foregoing review result was defective, and the Defendant again requested the National Pension Service to examine the Plaintiff’s disability rating.

On September 21, 2016, the National Pension Service rendered a decision to exclude the disability ratings for the following reasons, and the Defendant, on September 28, 2016, rendered a decision to exclude the Plaintiff from the disability ratings according to the results of the examination on the Plaintiff’s objection.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). In light of the fact that a diagnosis letter of disability, medical record site, and additional data were examined and reviewed on May 1, 201 as a result of the reexamination, the diagnosis was diagnosed as “aic mental disorder” in the medical certificate on the medical record in May 201, and the treatment content, function level, etc. according to the clinical symptoms and symptoms in the course of outpatient treatment, the obvious symptoms of the pathic disease, such as pathic and net symptoms, are not verified, and it is not recognized as having any functional and ability disorder caused by the pathic disease.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said administrative appeal on November 23, 2016.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On January 9, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion is brain cerebrovascularssis.