1. The Defendant’s decision on the disability grade rendered to the Plaintiff on January 20, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received the determination of a disability grade 2 with respect to the degree of a cerebral cerebral typhism due to the cerebral typhism outbreak in 2004.

B. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s disability falls under class 3 of the cerebral Bribery on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s disability falls under class 3 on the grounds that the following is indicated:

It is confirmed that brain resistant disability in the criteria for disability ratings has been continuously and actively treated for at least two years, and if it is not adjusted, it shall be determined according to the type and frequency of writing.

All decisions shall be confirmed as objective medical records, and the classification basis, frequency of occurrence, and affirmative treatment evidence (as to the prescription of medicine, patient's net response, etc.) shall be described in the medical records.

Considering the shape and frequency of brain dystrophys that can be confirmed on the records of the submitted disability diagnosis and the medical records for the last one year, it is recognized as being in need of protection and management from time to time in the daily life and social life at least 6 times a month, or 10 or more severe dystrophys annually.

Accordingly, I shall be determined as Class III.

C. On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant. However, on January 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a determination on the disability grade 3 with respect to the Plaintiff’s cerebrovascularis 3 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff had experienced 10 or more times a month for the introduction of a multi-functional work for telegraph and a multi-functional work for telegraph, and it is unlawful for the Defendant to change the Plaintiff’s disability grade 2 through 3 without any objective basis, even though there is no special change in the frequency of creation despite active treatment.