고엽제 재심 장애등급결정처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 17, 2006, the Plaintiff was receiving veterans support after having been judged as having been potential aftereffects of defoliants with respect to the toxical heart disease, etc., on January 17, 2012, and applied for a re-examination on the ground of re-examination on April 27, 2012 on the ground of the amendment of the Act on Support for Patients from Actual or Potential Diseases, Etc. (hereinafter “HHA”) (Enforcement of April 18, 2012) (hereinafter “HA”), and on April 18, 2012, it was determined as “major injury: Heal heart disease, rating, and classification number” through a written physical examination on the disability rating classification on April 18, 2012, but applied for a re-examination on April 27, 2012.
On the other hand, on January 26, 2010, the Plaintiff was recognized as a disease subject to the Act on defoliants, such as the latter cancer, high blood pressure, and cryrosis, but was determined as falling short of the criteria for physical examination results.
B. On August 24, 2012, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s physical examination on August 27, 2012 and notified the Plaintiff of the results of the physical examination determination of the classification of defoliant’s disability rating (a change without delay) on August 27, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 15, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is unlawful without deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement under the Act, when determining the disability rating of the Plaintiff, who is a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants.
(2) Although the Plaintiff constitutes class 3 20 by comprehensively taking into account the whole chest-long-term period after undergoing a luxing surgery, the Plaintiff’s disability rating is unlawful by taking the Defendant’s disability rating into account only the luxing heart disease as the subject of determination, without considering the above luxing beer of the luxing beer, without considering the above luxing beer of the luxing beer.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
(c).