1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is partly dismissed as follows; and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendant’s argument at the appellate court as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

On July 8, 2013, the second half of the judgment of the first instance court, “The Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on July 8, 2013,” and the second half to the effect that “the Defendant issued a notice of the result of the reexamination (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on July 8, 2013.”

Part V through 16 of the Decision of the first instance shall be stated below the 5th 20th e, and the part from the last 5th to the 6th 12th eth eth eth eth 4th eth eth 5.

The first instance court's judgment "the wound of this case" in the first instance court's decision shall be "the injury of this case" and "the injury of this case".

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. According to the fact-finding results on the director of the Central University Hospital, in order to conduct accurate appraisal, it is necessary to observe the person for a considerable period of time, and to determine the disability rating only by the medical record appraisal, it is unreasonable to determine the disability rating. In light of the above, it is unreasonable to determine that the court of first instance determined the disability rating of the plaintiff based solely on the medical record appraisal results by the medical record appraisal of the medical record of this case where the person who prepared the diagnosis report in the part of "mental disorder" among the types of disability is a psychiatrist who continuously treated for not less than one year immediately before the disability diagnosis for not less than one year, or there is no medical specialist corresponding thereto for not less than three consecutive months immediately before the disability diagnosis. However, in light of the above, it is unreasonable to determine that the court of first instance determined that the disability rating of the plaintiff was erroneous in the determination of the disability rating of this case based solely on the medical record appraisal results

B. Determination B.