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

A. The plaintiffs 1) The plaintiff A is the deceased E (hereinafter "the deceased").

(2) The deceased entered the Army on May 6, 1964 and participated in the Vietnam War from December 1, 1968 to June 17, 1970. The deceased was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants and registered as a person of distinguished service to the State on July 1, 2002, and died on January 8, 2004.

B. 1) After the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff sought payment of bereaved family's compensation by asserting that the deceased died of urine disease caused by defoliants to the Ulsan National Veterans Organization. However, the head of the Ulsan National Veterans Organization cannot recognize the causal relationship between the death of the deceased on April 8, 2004 and urology on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the death of the deceased (hereinafter "previous disposition").

(2) On June 26, 2012, Plaintiff A filed an application for reexamination on the above disposition, asserting that the cause of death of the deceased was caused by urology with the U.S. on June 26, 2012. However, on August 24, 2012, the head of the U.S. Veterans Organization rendered a decision on the bereaved family members of the U.S. deceased’s death (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground that the deceased’s death was not caused by urology with the Plaintiff on August 24, 2012.

Plaintiff

A dissatisfied with the instant disposition, on November 2, 2012, filed a petition for adjudication with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said Adjudication Committee dismissed the petition on April 23, 2013.

3) On July 18, 2013, Plaintiff A filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Ulsan District Court (2013Guhap1410). The said court rendered a judgment to the effect that “The instant disposition is unlawful since it may be inferred that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s urology and the death of the deceased.” The head of the Ulsan District Court appealed against the foregoing judgment, but the head of the Ulsan District Court appealed to the Busan High Court (2015Nu23175).