고엽제 적용대상 비해당 결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the Deceased”) entered on February 1, 1965 and participated in the Vietnam War from August 1, 1966 to July 1, 1967, but died on March 26, 2015 after discharged on August 26, 1967.
B. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the deceased’s spouse, filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant on July 24, 2015, and the Deceased died in Vietnam.
C. As a result of the written examination of a veterans hospital conducted upon the request of the Plaintiff, the medical specialist of the Republic of Korea determined the deceased as “sponson’s disease” as a non-sponson’s disease. On March 18, 2016, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement made a decision that the deceased does not meet the requirements of Article 8(1)1 of the former Act on Assistance to Patients, etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (amended by Act No. 13605, Dec. 22, 2015) on the ground that any specific and objective evidence is not verified to verify the death of the deceased due to a sponson’s disease.
Based on this, on March 17, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-applicable disposition to the Plaintiff under the Act on defoliants (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.
At the time of their survival, the Deceased was registered as a patient suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants after having judged the degree of disability and the degree of injury to the potential aftereffects of defoliants, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 5-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the deceased’s disease occurred in Vietnam War and died therefrom, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes the bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to the defoliant Act.
Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s petition is unlawful.
B. The deceased was recognized.