1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered both elbows, spine, and preferential composts due to an industrial accident that occurred on April 20, 2014, and caused a disability therefrom, and applied for a disability pension to the Defendant on February 12, 2018.

B. On March 19, 2018, the Defendant rendered a judgment below on the ground that “Around October 21, 2015 after one year and six months from the date of the first medical examination, and February 12, 2018, which was the date of the claim for a disability pension, were examined as at the base point, respectively, as to whether the Plaintiff’s disability pension falls under the Plaintiff’s disability pension; however, considering the progress of treatment, etc., the Defendant’s judgment below was rendered.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As the doctor of B hospital’s body appraisal of the Plaintiff’s assertion was assessed to fall under class 4-9 of the disability grade under the National Pension Act on different premise, since the passive total exercise scope of the Plaintiff’s left-hand satisfaction was reduced to not more than 35 degrees, and the Plaintiff’s physical exercise scope was reduced to not more than 1/2 of the normal exercise scope, the instant disposition was unlawful on different premise.

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

C. The judgment of the National Pension Act, the Enforcement Decree of the National Pension Act, and the National Pension Service’s disability examination regulations provide that “the remaining person who is unable to use Section 1 of the third part of the third part of a bridge” with respect to the disability grade shall be determined as Grade 4, and the detailed criteria are as follows: “A person whose physical exercise scope under Section 1 of the third part of the third part of a bridge has been reduced to less than 1/4 of the normal exercise scope (Class 4 subparagraph 6).” In full view of the following circumstances confirmed in the record, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not fall under the above is lawful.

① According to the physical appraisal report on the Plaintiff (No. 3, however, the degree of disability rating seems to be erroneous), the exercise scope of the Plaintiff’s left-hand satisfaction level is 35 degrees in total as follows:

5. The outer half of the flapsying ground 5.1