1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 27, 2015, while serving as an employee of the Jinsung Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff provided medical care to the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) he/she was suffering from a wound, such as tearing her tear, face her face, her hair damage, her head’s serum damage, her hair damage, external disorder of the two mouths, external stress disorder, external stress disorder, and she was suffering from injury; (b) on February 7, 2017, he/she applied for disability benefits to the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, on March 27, 2017, the Defendant is a person who remains with extreme scarcity in appearance with respect to the Plaintiff’s disability condition and is under the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”).

) Considering that the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 7 subparag. 12 of the disability grade prescribed in the attached Table 6 (as a person who remains nearism in the part of the bureau, and falls under class No. 14 subparag. 10 of the disability grade prescribed in the attached Table 6, the Plaintiff’s disability grade was determined as

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(i) [In the absence of a dispute over the basis of recognition, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion consented to the Defendant’s opinion that it falls under class 7 subparag. 12 of the disability grade under the Enforcement Decree (Attached Table 6) as a person who remains scarb in the inner part of the accident of this case, but the Plaintiff’s disability grade is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff’s remaining scarbia and falls under class 15 of the disability grade prescribed in the Enforcement Decree (Attached Table 6) as a person whose mental function is considerably limited due to stress after external stress disorder caused by the accident of this case, despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under class 9 subparag. 15 of the disability grade under the Enforcement Decree (Attached Table 6).

B. According to the evidence No. 5-3 and No. 13 of the judgment No. 1, in the physical appraisal of the case No. 2017Gada105236, the Plaintiff was on credit due to the instant accident.