1. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition to determine a disability grade rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 29, 2011, the Plaintiff approved the Defendant’s medical care from the occupational accident that occurred on the part of the Defendant with respect to “the full-time cutting of the two sides, the thring of the Bridges, the structural frame of both sides, the left-hand strings, the upper-hand strings of the two sides, and the strings of the middle-level strings, the strings of the middle-level strings, the inter-liver diseases, the external strings of the external strings, the two strings, the two strings of the two strings of the two strings, and the Absings of the Abane (Ma31, Ma41, Ma42)” and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on October

B. Accordingly, on November 22, 2016, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability status as follows, and subsequently rendered a disposition that the final disability grade constituted “Class 2 Subparagraph 3” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A person who has lost two arms from a part above the hump of not less than the hump of not less than 2 arms: A person who, due to not less than 3 dental surgery in accordance with class 3 of class 2, has been in accordance with a heart response due to a disaster of class 3 of class 14, has not been treated as a cardio-psychological method: the fact that there is no dispute over class 10 of class 14 [applicable for recognition], each entry in subparagraphs 1 through 6 (including a provisional number), and the purport

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no dispute as to the part of the instant disposition that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who loses two arms from a part above the hump of the hump of the hump of the hump of the hump of the hump of the hump of the hump of the hump of the hump (Class

However, since the plaintiff's mental disorder and mental function disorder status is not a "person remaining with neological disorder" (class 14th class 10) but a "person with severe neological disorder" (class 12th class 15), the plaintiff's disability grade is two or more disabilities falling under class 13 or higher, and the plaintiff's disability grade constitutes class 1 in accordance with Article 53 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but the disposition of this case issued on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination Doesck;