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 March 15, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered an accident from the construction site on the part of March 15, 2014, after receiving medical care until September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the medical treatment of the Defendant and then completed the medical treatment of the Defendant until September 15, 2014, with the medical treatment approval of the Defendant, and the disability grade No. 12 subparag. 13 of the 3th disability of the 13th Tropical body.

B. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff, upon obtaining approval for additional medical care from the Defendant, claimed that the Plaintiff re-treatment was made by September 2, 2015, and that the shoulder field was caused by such re-treatment until September 2, 2015. However, on October 5, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to pay disability benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff’s shoulder control exercise scope falls short of disability grade standards at 460 (the instant disposition was conducted under the following).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on the premise that the Plaintiff’s shoulder-saving movement scope falls short of the disability grade criteria. However, according to the result of the test of the shoulder-saving movement scope conducted at B Hospital on September 2, 2015 after the surgery, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff’s disability grade was not changed in class No. 13 subparag. 12, which was conducted on the premise that the Plaintiff’s left-hand shoulder-shack movement scope was 310 in total, and that the Plaintiff’s disability grade was not changed in class No. 13, which was the previous disability grade.

(b).