1. On July 11, 2014, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a suspended disposition of pension according to the re-determination of the disability grade and KRW 63,95,080.

1. Details of disposition;

A. In occupational accidents occurred on February 16, 2005, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from the Defendant until January 9, 2007, after suffering from injury of “The Sponsorae flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue f

B. On January 22, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent claim for disability benefits. On January 22, 2007, the Defendant paid disability pension by making a decision of Grade 7 (the previous disposition in this case) to Grade 8 (the first part of the third part of the third part of the arms) to the right shoulder 8 (the first part of the third part of the arms) and Grade 12 (the remaining part of the first part of the third part of the bridge) to the left part 12 (the remaining part of the third part of the bridge).

C. On July 11, 2014, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s disability grade was erroneous at the time of the instant previous disposition, and determined that the Plaintiff’s disability grade was a class 10 (the remaining person who has a significant obstacle to the function of one joint section among the three joints of the three joints of arms) toward the right shoulder, and made a decision of unjust enrichment for KRW 63,95,080, which remains after deducting the amount equivalent to class 9 from the amount remaining after deducting the amount equivalent to class 9 from the disability pension already received (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion without any reasonable ground that the disposition of this case was unlawful as it did not comply with the requirements required to cancel the beneficial administrative act, which led to the Plaintiff’s disability grade 8 to 10 higher than that of the Plaintiff’s right shoulder.

B. 1) At the time of filing a claim for disability benefits, the Plaintiff attached a disability diagnosis report on January 9, 2007 issued by the Department B (former Department C) located in Incheon (former Department C) (hereinafter “the disability diagnosis report on January 9, 2007”); and this is the Plaintiff’s right-hand movement scope.