1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade against the Plaintiff on January 26, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 28, 2017, at the construction site of a commercial building, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident that fell below 2 meters due to the omission of a board while removing the stairs of the fourth floor of the building at the construction site of a commercial building (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff was suffering from the said accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff was under medical care treatment by December 30, 2017, with the Defendant’s approval for medical care, by December 30, 2017, for the “defluence of the left-hand edges, the upper left-hand edges, and the injury to the front left-hand bank.”

B. On January 26, 2018, the Defendant determined the disability grade under the final 12th 10 on the part of the Plaintiff’s medical opinion to the effect that “as to the Plaintiff, the disability grade falls under class 10 of class 12, class 10 of class 12 and class 10 of class 14 of class 14 of class 14 of class 12 (in the case of a person who has an obstacle to the function of one of the three sections of one bridge (60 degrees 60 degrees e.g., e., the e., the e.s.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed the instant lawsuit on February 22, 2018.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1 through 7, the whole argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As the exercise area of the Plaintiff’s left side of the Plaintiff’s assertion is limited to at least 1/2, the Plaintiff’s state of disability falls under class 14 of class 10.

Nevertheless, the Defendant erred by misapprehending the disability grade No. 12 No. 10 based on the result of the Defendant’s measurement on the left side of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the degree of disability of the plaintiff's left part is class 10 of class 12, should be revoked as it is illegal.

B. Medical opinion 1) On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff’s opinion (B’s opinion): the current left-hand satisfaction level, the reduction of the reduction of the exercise restriction (in the front line), and the remainder of the exercise restriction (in the front line) are considered to have considerable restrictions on labor due to the complete East line. The future short-term (within six months or on the possibility of aggravation or recurrence): the ability of the left-hand heading line.