2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

A. On October 24, 2002, the Plaintiff returned to the Vietnam War and was registered as a patient suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants after being judged as a result of the physical examination conducted by the Daegu Veterans Hospital’s disability grade on the grounds of high blood pressure and blood transfusion, which is a disease suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants.

B. After that, on December 23, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional registration with the Defendant to recognize urine disease as actual aftereffects of defoliants, and on March 7, 2005, the Defendant conducted a new physical examination for disability classification with the Plaintiff on March 7, 2005, and the Plaintiff was registered as a person of distinguished service to the State on April 6, 2005 with the judgment of disability rating 7 based on urology certificate. C. On September 11, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for a re-classification physical examination (hereinafter “the first re-examination”). However, on November 26, 2008, the Defendant determined that the previous classification was different from that of the previous classification, and notified the Plaintiff.

On December 15, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the disposition of grading the physical examination (hereinafter “instant administrative litigation”). On December 16, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the dismissal ruling issued by the Daegu District Court 2009Guhap2902. On November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the dismissal ruling. On November 1, 2010, when the appellate court was in progress at the Daegu High Court 2010Nu185, the Plaintiff filed an application for a reclassification physical examination (hereinafter “the second reclassification”) with the Defendant on December 21, 2010, and withdrawn an appeal against the said administrative litigation on November 3, 2011. The Defendant paid the difference between the Defendant’s disability rating and the Defendant’s 6th 7th mar 16th mar 2, 2010, retroactively to the Plaintiff.