1. The plaintiff's primary claim among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 16, 2012, the Plaintiff suffered from an accident that fells in the range of 6 to 7 meters of vaddi, which was serving at the construction site of the Plaintiff’s employees B.

The Plaintiff provided medical care until December 3, 2014, including “the Third Tuesty Epins, both sides of the upper upper aggregate, the upper half of the upper half alleys, the upper half of the upper half alleys, the left side dypusus frys (No. 6-10), the upper half alleys, the right fyp, the upper half alleys, and the sculd salt.”

B. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff received the determination of the grade of disability of Grade VII by the Defendant on December 30, 2014, which adjusted the “Class VIII of bridge disability” including ① the 160 degree of movement scope in the right side (Grade 12) and the 35 degree of movement scope in the right side (Grade 12) and ② the “persons who suffer from the functional disorder and the salves disorder in the right side (Grade 10),” including ① the 160 degree of movement scope in the right side (Grade 12).

C. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-determination of a disability grade. On November 15, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to lower the disability grade to Grade VIII on the ground that “the disability of the senior class in the senior class (210do) is below the standard (255 degrees)” on November 15, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). This is to adjust ① the “Class 9 of the bridge disability” to which the 1st degree of the functional obstacle (Grade 10) on the right side is applied mutatis mutandis, and ② the “persons who suffer from the disability of the sloping and the galleical disorder (Grade 12) on the right side” (Grade 12).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on March 23, 2018.

Therefore, the plaintiff re-appealed and filed a request for reexamination, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the plaintiff's request for reexamination on June 29, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion of this case is asserted.