1. The Defendant’s disposition suspending payment of disability pension against the Plaintiff on April 19, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was an employee of B Co., Ltd., and was engaged in the removal of work at the construction site inside Gwangju-si D located in Gwangju-si on the part of the Plaintiff’s head (hereinafter “the instant disaster”), and was diagnosed as “erode salt, less than fluoral brain damage,” and around that time, the Plaintiff received medical care approval from the Defendant for the said injury.

B. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant applied for an injury to the climatic disorder, but the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition on August 26, 2014 pursuant to the result of the deliberation by the advisory panel that “it is difficult to recognize additional injury due to the lack of observation of the climatic characteristics, distortion of symptoms and feasibility as a result of the psychological examination.”

On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed a request for review on September 22, 2014, and the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the above disposition of refusal of injury or disease (hereinafter referred to as “previous review decision”) on the following grounds: (a) “When the Plaintiff’s cerebral Ra leaves on either side of the two sides of the Plaintiff, it is deemed that the climatic disorder is deemed to have occurred after the disaster, and the climatic disorder is deemed to have occurred when the climatic disorder was deemed to be the damaged volume of the climatic.”

C. Since then, according to the purport of the previous review and decision, the Plaintiff received medical treatment until January 16, 2015, with the approval of “amendic personality disorder” as an additional injury, and received a disability compensation annuity pursuant to the judgment of class 4 of the disability grade (except for those who are not likely to have any impediment to the function or mental function of the neurosis) from the Defendant after the completion of medical treatment.

On December 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for re-determination of a disability grade under Article 59(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and on April 19, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the following matters with the title “a notice on the result of re-determination of a disability grade”:

(c).