부작위위법확인
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Case history
A. On August 9, 1967, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in the Vietnam War from August 24, 1969 to June 17, 197, and was discharged from active service on July 18, 1970. After which, the Plaintiff was recognized as suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants (Grade VII) and mathalne (excluding class VII) due to actual aftereffects of defoliants, and after receiving a physical examination for re-verification on June 7, 2004, the Plaintiff was judged as Grade VII 702 on urology.
B. On Apr. 7, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to recognize “the upper eye and left eye” as an additional wound, and on Aug. 23, 2005, filed an administrative appeal on Nov. 11, 2005 against the above injured party, which was subject to a disposition of non-conformity with the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, and received treatment due to the explosion of the booby-tra during the strike period by the Plaintiff on July 6, 2006, the Plaintiff was recognized as an additional wound against the right eye (under the center of the boo-booth, the frithum caused by the yellow half of the booby-W) in the applied for damages.
C. Accordingly, on August 30, 2006, the Defendant conducted a re-physical examination for the Plaintiff on August 30, 2006, and on September 4, 2006, issued a disability rating decision with grade 7 on the Plaintiff’s urology as grade 7, grade 7, grade 201 (under grade 0.06), and grade 7, grade 7, grade 7, grade 201 on the right eye as to the Plaintiff’s urology (under grade 0.06), upon which the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal again, and the above disability rating decision was revoked on June 5, 2007 at the Plaintiff’s request.
Accordingly, on October 1, 2007, the Defendant again conducted a reclassification physical examination for the Plaintiff, and on October 25, 2007, rendered a disposition to determine the Plaintiff as class 7, 702 with respect to urology, and as to the right eye part, class 6-2(2)51 with respect to the Plaintiff’s urology (the corrected eyesight of her eye is under 0.02).
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;