1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around November 1998, the Plaintiff was registered as a class 3 of the disability cut to the left-hand side. On May 9, 2008, the Plaintiff received an early medical examination from a hospital located in Gangnam-si on the surface of a fluence, and received an examination of symptoms, such as influence, depression, apprehension, etc. from around March 2010, and received a intermittent treatment through C mental hospital, and received treatment from August 23, 2016 to the Seoul National University Hospital from August 23, 2016, and on February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for disability registration to the Defendant on February 14, 2017.

B. On February 14, 2017, the Defendant requested the National Pension Service to examine the Plaintiff’s disability grade. On March 10, 2017, the National Pension Service notified the Plaintiff of the examination report that “The symptoms, such as the depression of the medical record book, a large amount of harmony, etc., are confirmed, but considering the results of brain image examination and psychological examination, etc. comprehensively, considering the functional aspect confirmed in the medical record book as the recognition function is increased, general treatment progress, etc., the Defendant does not recognize the case where the symptoms of the degree of disability falls under the disability grade continue to exist or frequently repeated. The Defendant did not determine the degree of disability that is necessary for sporadic assistance due to the function and ability disorder caused by repeated disorder, and thus, on March 10, 2017, the examination report was given to the Plaintiff, who rendered a decision other than the rating (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on July 11, 2017, but received a ruling of dismissal on September 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-6, and the fact inquiry results about B Hospital Head of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is about 12 years ago.