1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 14:00 on June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff felled from the Defendant to install fire prevention facilities at the construction site, and filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant after finishing treatment on June 21, 2019, the Plaintiff received the approval of the medical care from the Defendant, as “the pressure frame, scarcitys, scarcitys damage, scarcity scarcitys damage, scarcity-type pains damage, scarcity-type pains, negoical brus, cirical brus, 3-10 multiple scars, to the right side,” and then filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant.

B. On October 22, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision on October 22, 2019 on the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 7 subparag. 4 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff constitutes “persons whose labor ability remains remaining to a half of ordinary people due to damage to their urines due to the climatic climatic conditions No. 2 in Malibrates No. 2, Malibrate G4, medication, climatic urology, and urology,” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The plaintiff filed a request for examination against the defendant, but the defendant dismissed it on March 17, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s claimed psychosissis’s functional disorder and the elimism’s functional disorder are different different degrees of disability, and the Plaintiff’s exerciseable area is limited to not less than 60%, thereby falling under class 17 of class 9 of the disability grade (the remaining persons of a high level of functional disorder in the heading). However, in rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant omitted this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's disability caused by the nego No. 4 of disability grade 7 and the nego No. 17 of disability grade 9 due to the nego No. 4 of disability grade, and the adjustment thereof constitutes disability grade 6, but the defendant's objection is different from this premise.