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. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed that “the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 9-15 against the Plaintiff was revoked, and the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 3 is determined as No. 3.3.” The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for determination of disability grade No. 3, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the determination of disability grade No. 9-15 against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed an incidental appeal seeking the acceptance of the above dismissed part in this court, but both the incidental appeal and the dismissed part were dismissed.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the cancellation of the decision of class 9 15 of the above disability grade that the defendant appealed.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows: (a) the court of first instance, on the 5th page 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall read "the court of first instance" as "the court of first instance"; and (b) the 8th class "the 8th class parallel work" as "the rupture coincide."

3. Additional determination

A. According to the Defendant’s assertion of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act [Attachment 6], in order to recognize the disability grade as a disability of the function or mental function of the neurosis, the rate of loss of labor ability should reach 50%.

However, the physical appraisal in the first instance court judged that the plaintiff's labor ability loss rate based on Mabrid List is 25%, and the labor ability loss rate based on the ratio of labor ability loss under the State Compensation Act corresponds to 30%, but the disability grade under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act can be recognized as class 7 4.

Therefore, according to the result of such contradictory appraisal, the plaintiff's disability grade cannot be recognized as class 7 4.