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 October 2, 1991, between January 30, 201 and February 1, 2012, to February 14, 2012, the Plaintiff subscribed to the National Pension as a workplace subscriber or an individually insured person. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of a disability pension with the Defendant, asserting that “on March 5, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant disease”) occurred.”

B. On April 7, 2014, the Defendant, following the review of internal consultation, cannot be deemed to have caused the instant disease during the subscription to the National Pension Scheme, and thus, the Defendant’s failure to receive disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff is the “instant disposition.”

A. Before 200:

The first day of the first day of March 5, 2010 to November 23, 2011 on the report on the occurrence of the relevant disability in the notice of the right to receive the entitlement to receive the entitlement was written on March 5, 2010 to November 23, 201, but the first day of the first day of the first day of the year, which was confirmed on January 21, 2014 on the data submitted, was found on January 21, 201 in consideration of the characteristics of the first day and the fact that the person is disqualified on February 15, 2012, etc.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Ministry of Health and Welfare on May 13, 2014, but such request was dismissed on August 29, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff saw that he was drinking herb on March 5, 2010 and November 23, 201, and that he was diagnosed on January 27, 201 as the condition where he was transferred to the right west, it is reasonable to view that the time when the Plaintiff was diagnosed at least three to four years from the time of the diagnosis that the disease occurred during the period of the national pension coverage, and thus, the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff as a beneficiary of a disability pension, considering that the disease in this case occurred after being disqualified and that it was not recognized as a beneficiary of a disability pension.