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 December 31, 2018, while working in Company B, the Plaintiff fells with stairs around 14:30 on December 31, 2018, and was receiving medical care approval for the “the alley of the e-mail in the atmosphere, 12 alleys, plehing, and 2-3-4 alleys in the direction.”

B. On June 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant, accompanied by a written disability diagnosis by the head of the rule that “the Plaintiff appears to have suffered an abnormal sense of spine and not, the left-hand class, the remaining condition of the restriction on exercise of the exercise of the high-hand class, and the flachim damage to the e

C. On September 24, 2019, the Defendant recognized the disability grade under class 12 subparag. 10, which corresponds to “the remaining persons who interfere with the function of only one of the three sections of Han bridges,” and class 10 of class 14 corresponding to “the remaining persons of the national part of the national part on the ground of the anti-sections general dynamics,” and determined the disability grade under class 12 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the relevant part of the bridge fell short of the disability grade” on the ground that “the head of the local part on the left part of the bridge falls short of the disability grade on the ground that the head of the local part on the ground that the head of the local part on the ground that the head of the local part on the ground that the head of the local part on the ground that the head of the local part on the ground that the head of the local part on the ground that the head of the local part on the road falls short of the disability grade.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff fell under subparagraph 12 of grade 13 by the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 263 of October 15, 2019), but the Defendant did not recognize it without any basis, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. The Plaintiff did not recognize it as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under the category of “a person who has a disability in the Domination of the Do,” which falls under subparagraph 12 of grade 13 (Article 53(2), [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 263 of October 15, 2019).