1. On February 12, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of grade 3 with respect to the Plaintiff’s disability grade is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff (born in 1961) was registered as a person with a mental disability of Grade II due to the early illness, and requested a disability grade review to the Defendant on December 26, 2013 upon the arrival of the deadline for disability disability re-examination.

B. On February 12, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disability grade 3 of the results of the examination requested by the National Pension Service, a specialized institution for disability grade review, and notified the Plaintiff of the disability grade 3 as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) . - Although there exists a mental disorder caused by a mental division in the submitted medical certificate and medical record area, considering medication, clinical symptoms, treatment progress, etc., it is deemed necessary to provide sporadical assistance due to disorder in functions and ability, and make a decision of class 3 of mental disorders. - Since continuous progress observation is necessary in the future, it is necessary to make a decision after nine years after the beginning of the nine-year period. In a case where there is symptoms, such as a person’s loss, exchange, accident disorder, or mosing behavior due to a mental division, but there is no serious personality change or mosing, it is necessary to provide sporadic assistance in at least 3 out of 6 items of the criteria for determining capacity disorder, and the GAF scale scores are at least 51 but not more than 60 points. C.

On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Disability Ratings Review Regulations. However, on March 20, 2014, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the disability grade 3 with the same purport as the instant disposition.

On April 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on April 19, 2014, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The person in charge who directly treated the plaintiff's assertion shows significant changes in character and is transferred to the plaintiff.