1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On October 9, 2003, the details of the disposition and the Plaintiff suffered a acute cerebral emerculation, and on April 10, 2008, the Defendant was determined by the third degree of disability on the ground of brain emerculation.

On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for the determination of disability ratings with the Defendant. On September 13, 2013, the Defendant determined on September 2013, 2013, that “the Plaintiff constitutes class 6 of the thalopical disability grade, because the Plaintiff voluntarily completed the Plaintiff’s actions for pedestrian and most daily life, but the Plaintiff was in a state of cruel performance or abnormal condition,” following the examination by the National Pension Service.

On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for revocation of the disposition of revocation of the disability grade examination (Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap29933). On May 1, 2015, the court rendered a judgment revoking the previous decision on the ground that “the Plaintiff is at the time when he/she, without other person’s help, performs his/her own behavior and most daily life, but is unable to completely perform his/her behavior without other person’s help, and it is reasonable to view the modified deton index as a disability grade 5 with a disability grade 81 to 90, and that judgment became final and conclusive on May 19, 2015.

On September 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a judgment on the disability grade 5 to the Plaintiff according to the above final judgment.

(hereinafter “Disposition” (hereinafter “instant Disposition”). In light of the fact that there is no dispute about the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s respective evidence Nos. 2-5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful in light of the circumstances where the Plaintiff was determined a class 3 disability

Judgment

In case where a new suit is instituted again even after the judgment against the plaintiff was rendered final and conclusive, the court shall not render any judgment inconsistent with the judgment finalized by res judicata, and thus, it shall render a ruling of dismissal in accordance with the contents of the judgment in the previous suit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2478, Jun. 27, 1989). Entry of No. 1 evidence and pleading is made.