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

(1) On September 2, 1957, on the part of the plaintiff's husband B entered the Marine Corps noncommissioned Officer, and was Vietnam Wared from May 16, 1967 to March 24, 1968, and died on May 4, 1995. < Amended by Act No. 3173, Sep. 30, 1970; Act No. 4879, May 4, 1995>

(2) On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to Article 8 of the former Act on Assistance to Patients Aggravated Injury, Etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (amended by Act No. 13605, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act”) on the ground that the deceased, her husband, died of her husband, as 'urine’, in Vietnam War, and on May 4, 1995.

(3) On July 31, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-specific disposition against the bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it was difficult to recognize that the deceased died of her from her “urine,” who was the victim of the instant application, and thus, failed to meet the requirements under Article 8(1) of the former Act.

【Court-Appellants 1, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) According to the former defoliant Act, ① a person who was discharged from actual aftereffects of defoliants as a soldier under the Military Service Act in the Vietnam War between July 18, 1964 and March 23, 1973, and was discharged from actual service in the area where defoliants was sprayed, falls under “patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants” (Article 2 subparag. 2(a) and Article 5(1)13), but ② his/her spouse was recognized as having died of actual aftereffects of defoliants for meeting the requirements for the registration of bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants (see Article 8(1)1 of the former Act, Article 4(1)3 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, etc.). In this case, the Plaintiff must prove that there was a proximate causal causal relation between “the deceased’s suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants” and his/her death (see Article 2 subparag. 2(a) and (1)2)2).

(2) On May 5, 1995, the deceased's death certificate (Evidence A No. 2) stated that "the deceased's death certificate of May 5, 1995 stated that "the pulmonary function suspension, the epulmonary function suspension, the epulmonary epulmonary epulmonary epulmonary epulmonary epulmonary epulmonary effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic efic e".

On the other hand, according to the court's entrustment of this court, the deceased medical professional in the Macheon-gu Seoul National University Hospital (the Maurology of the Maurology) was hospitalized in the state where the urology of the urology had been accompanied by the urine catology witness, the Maurology and the urine Maurology, such as the occurrence of Maurology Maurology for more than 15 years, and more than 3 years before hospitalization, and the degree of contribution of the deceased's urology to the urology was determined to have been significantly aggravated, and the degree of contribution of the deceased's urology was determined to have not been determined by the degree of contribution of the deceased's urology to the urology at the time of the urology and the urology infection at the time of appearance on April 16, 195.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it is deemed that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased died from urology. Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.

On the other hand, a person determined as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants and determined as a disability grade 7 or higher after registration shall receive compensation from the wounded veterans pursuant to Article 6(1) of the former Act, and if he/she dies, he/she shall receive compensation from the wounded veterans of at least Grade 6 of the disability rating (Article 12(1)4 of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act), and the compensation for bereaved families of the wounded soldiers was lower than the bereaved family members of the soldier or policeman killed in the Korean War or the person who died on duty by at least 97% for disability rating 1 or 5, and about 35% for disability rating 6(attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35755 Decided July 7, 2016)

2) Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which was amended by Act No. 13605, Dec. 12, 2015, provides that "persons whose disability rating has been determined in a physical examination under Article 6-3(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, who are recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants" shall be limited to the bereaved family members who meet the criteria for disability rating, and their bereaved family members shall be compensated as bereaved family members killed and wounded in action. Article 1 of the Addenda to the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which provides that "this Act shall enter into force six months after the date of its promulgation: Provided, That Article 6(2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Actual aftereffects of defoliants shall enter into force at the time of its enforcement, notwithstanding the previous provision, Article 8(1) and (2) of the former Act shall apply to the case where patients applied.