1. On July 4, 2013, the Defendant’s decision on whether to be entitled to a disability pension granted to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 199, the Plaintiff acquired the eligibility as an individually insured person of the National Pension Service, and maintained the above eligibility until the date of closing the argument in this case.

B. On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed a disability pension payment against the Defendant on the ground that there was a paralysis, urology, etc. (hereinafter “instant disability”).

C. On July 4, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether to be entitled to a disability pension against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s accurate name of the injury and disease, the first diagnosis date, the degree of disability, etc. cannot be confirmed.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on November 7, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is lawful, on the ground that it is not possible to determine when the base date for disability rating is determined, and what is the applicable laws and regulations, as it does not confirm what the disease, which is the cause of the instant disability, is not the disease that occurred during membership.

As a result of the fact-finding on the Head of the Central University Hospital of this Court, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful on a different premise, on the other hand, since the Plaintiff’s disability-related disease was brain dystrophism or the cause of brain dystrophism and the first diagnosis date was revealed to be August 25, 2010.

(b) Entry in the attached statutes of the relevant statutes;

C. Facts 1) The Plaintiff was treated with vertebral disease, cryposis, cryposis disorder, etc. accompanied by nephal ppuri disease from January 2007. On August 21, 2009, the Plaintiff complained of the vertebrate cryposis, and was diagnosed with vertebral cryposis No. 4-5 during the vertebram crymism.

B. After that, the Plaintiff’s perception, math, and math.