(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.08.31 2016구합51

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.08.31 2016구합51

장애등급결정처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 9, 2010, the Plaintiff was at around 2002, and was at around 3, registered as a disabled person of grade IV, delayed (verteb), 6, and 4 with disability rating in lulutin. On April 9, 2010, the Plaintiff had a major disability.

B. On the other hand, on September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a new registration of disability with delay (on the basis of the results of the review on the degree of disability of the National Pension Service. On October 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered, on the basis of the results of the review on the degree of disability of the National Pension Service, a decision not to grade the Plaintiff, and a decision not to grade the application for the adjustment of disability (on the basis of the application for the adjustment of disability), 4 and 6 of the same grade as that of the previous disability (on the other hand, the function not to grade) and the decision of grade 3 of the comprehensive disability grade (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, and the Defendant again requested a review of the degree of disability to the National Pension Service, and accordingly, determined the Plaintiff’s overall disability grade as Grade III on the same ground as the instant disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted a re-operation in 2008, 2009, and 2010 and the scope of movement for the scam and the scambling does not reach 50% of the normal conditions, and that all the scamblings and scamblings do not lead to the impossibility of independent walking at present, and that it is necessary or impossible to perform a considerable help in daily life, such as bath, scambling, and scambling, etc. due to the fact that there is a serious scambling for the scambling and scambling, the Plaintiff is “a person who has a significant obstacle

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.11.27 2015구합22180

-부산지방법원 2015.09.18 2014구합3236

-대전지방법원 2020.08.19 2019구합105060

-울산지방법원 2015.01.15 2014구합698

-대구지방법원 2016.09.22 2015구합24347