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

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on August 1, 1970 and was discharged from the military service on October 18, 1972 to June 7, 1973 after the Vietnam War.

B. On August 9, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for registration of patients suffering from defoliants to the Defendant, and registered and determined as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and as patients suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants with respect to high blood pressure. As a result of a physical examination to classify disability ratings and disability ratings, the Plaintiff was determined as disability ratings of class VII 702 on and around October 12, 2005, and was determined as disability ratings of high blood pressure.

C. On July 21, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination of urology and high blood pressure with the Defendant. On December 5, 201, as a result of the physical examination for the classification of disability rating and disability ratings, the Plaintiff received the determination of disability grade with the same content as that of the previous disability (hereinafter “previous disposition”) in accordance with the opinion that the urology, actual aftereffects of defoliants, falls under disability rating 7 grade 202 and 702, and that the high blood pressure, actual aftereffects of defoliants, as potential aftereffects of defoliants, falls short of the disability grade due to the lack of awareness and diagnosis by a medical specialist, and that it falls under the urdo disability grade due to the lack of a diagnosis by a medical specialist (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

D. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a re-examination on the high blood pressure, which was potential for actual aftereffects of defoliants, to the Defendant, and conducted a physical examination for the classification of disability grades at the Central Veterans Hospital; however, on May 28, 2015, the medical opinion that kidy and medical specialists “nannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannannann

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is suffering from paind from urcule and urcule urcule in a state that can be real name due to damage to urcule, proliferational urculeosis, and urcule urcule urcule, etc. However, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s high blood pressure falls short of the disability grade standard on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any verification of high blood pressure dysium and that the low blood pressure dysium was not detected by high blood pressure (1+not less than 1 +). The Defendant first examined the statutes applicable to the Plaintiff’s disability ratings for the division of disability ratings.

2) 고엽제후유의증 등 환자지원 및 단체설립에 관한 법률 시행령(2014. 11. 24. 대통령령 제25778호로 개정되어 2015. 1. 1.부터 시행된 것, 이하 ‘고엽제법 시행령’이라 약칭한다)은 부칙 제2조(장애등급 판정에 관한 적용례 및 경과조치)는 제1항에서 이 영 시행 당시 제7조 에 따라 신체검사를 신청한 사람 또는 국가보훈처장이 직권으로 신체검사를 실시하기로 한 사람에 대해서는 별표 1의 개정규정에 따라 장애등급을 판정하도록 하는 한편, 제2항에서 이 영 시행 당시 종전의 규정에 따라 장애등급을 판정받은 사람으로서 장애정도에 변동이 없음에도 불구하고 별표 1의 개정규정에 따라 장애등급이 낮아지는 사람에 대해서는 종전의 규정에 따르도록 하고 있다. 그런데 종전 처분 당시 적용되던 구 고엽제후유의증 등 환자지원 및 단체설립에 관한 법률 시행령(2014. 11. 24. 대통령령 제25778호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 고엽제법 시행령’이라 약칭한다) [별표 1] 고엽제후유의증환자 장애등급 구분표에 따르면 고혈압에 대하여 ‘고혈압으로 인하여 2회 이상 단백뇨가 검출된 사람, 고혈압성 망막증으로 인하여 한 눈의 교정시력이 0.06 이하이거나 두 눈의 교정시력이 각각 0.6 이하인 사람, 고혈압으로 인하여 혈중 크레아티닌의 농도가 1.5㎎/㎗ 이상 1.8㎎/㎗ 미만인 사람’ 등을 경도 장애에 해당하는 것으로 분류하고 있었던 반면, 고엽제법 시행령 [별표 1] 고엽제후유의증 환자 장애등급 구분표는 고혈압에 대하여 ‘고혈압으로 인하여 2회 이상 소변검사에서 단백뇨가 현증(1+이상)으로 검출된 사람, 고혈압성 망막증으로 인하여 한 눈의 교정시력이 0.06 이하이거나 두 눈의 교정시력이 각각 0.6 이하인 사람, 고혈압으로 인하여 혈중 크레아티닌의 농도가 1.5㎎/㎗ 이상 3.0㎎/㎗ 미만인 사람’ 등이 경도 장애에 해당하는 것으로 개정되었다.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 14-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 15, the physical examination conducted at the Central Veterans Hospital prior to the instant disposition for disability grade classification upon the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have no high blood pressure verification, and the Plaintiff’s catin concentration was measured 0.96mg/dl, protein, and protein. Thus, the degree of the Plaintiff’s high blood pressure disorder cannot be deemed to fall short of the disability grade classification table of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Act on defoliants, but it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s disability grade was found to fall short of the disability grade classification table of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Act on defoliants because it was found that the degree of disability grade of the Plaintiff’s disability grade was found to fall short of the disability grade classification mark of the Plaintiff’s disability grade to be found to have been found to have been found to have been lower than the disability grade classification standard of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on defoliants’s disability grade classification.

4) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant applied the amended Act on different premise to determine that the Plaintiff’s high blood pressure falls short of the disability grade standard is unlawful ( further, even if the Plaintiff was found to have been detected from a prosecutor conducted by the Medical Center at ○ University on May 13, 2016 and June 28, 2016, respectively, by applying the amended Act.)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-hoon