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 January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was a non-public person who was working in the non-public domain. On the other hand, the pipe was diagnosed as “understanding 20% of the core nature of the electric image, 3Do20% of the electric image, 11, and 12 of the left side, and the part excluding the clocks of both sides, and 3 degrees of the arms, excluding the images, right hand hand hand hand hand, and hand hand hand, 3 degrees of the arms, 3 degrees of the arms, sound, clock, adjustment disorder, right-hand frisome damage, right-to-hand boom damage, right-hand brush damage, and 2 degrees of the upper part of the upper part, and received medical care until March 23, 2016 after obtaining approval from the Defendant for an occupational accident.”

B. On April 7, 2016 after the completion of treatment with the above medical care approval, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant. On May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant the determination of class 9 of disability in bridge skills, class 12 of disability, and class 14 of disability grade, and received the final disability grade 8 following the adjustment of disability grade (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion, following the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s chronic disorder status constitutes class 5 of class II, which corresponds to a person who needs to receive constant nursing care at any time due to a significant trouble in the function of the aftermathic system due to high voltage electric damage, and falls under class 7 or class 7 of class 6, which is limited to 3/4 or more of kneeing and kneeing, and thus, the Plaintiff’s final disability grade should be determined as class 5 or 7.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case, which decided the plaintiff's final disability grade 8, is unlawful.

B. 1) First, we examine the problem of the bridge disability. (a) As to the height part of the right-hand bridge, the health unit and the Plaintiff’s right-hand side.