고엽제후유증환자등급처분취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case
A. The summary of the instant case pertains to the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff’s disability grade caused by potential aftereffects of defoliants against the Defendant constitutes a disability grade higher than that prescribed by the former Act on Assistance, etc. to Patients Affected by Actual or Potential aftereffects of defoliants (amended by Act No. 11203, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22608, Dec. 31, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Act”), and sought revocation of the Defendant’s disability grade determination.
The judgment of the first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that at the time the Defendant decided the Plaintiff’s disability grade, the Plaintiff was not deemed to have a serious disability higher than that of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff appealed against this.
[Attachment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes]
B. The premise fact 【Evidence’s purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as follows: (i) the Plaintiff entered the Army on May 30, 1968, and served in the area where defoliants was spraying, from February 16, 1970 to May 12, 1971, and was discharged on June 12, 1971. < Amended by Act No. 2790, Feb. 16, 1978; Act No. 2793, Feb. 16, 1978; Act No. 2793, Feb. 16, 1970; Act No. 279, Jun. 12, 1971>
⑵ 피고의 장애등급 결정처분 ㈎ 원고는 피고에게 고엽제후유의증환자 등록을 신청하여 고엽제후유의증의 질병으로 2001. 1. 19. 뇌경색증과 고혈압을 인정받았고, 2001. 8. 29. 뇌출혈을 인정받았다.
㈏ 원고는 고엽제후유의증 질병으로 인한 장애의 등급판정을 위하여 장애등급을 구분하는 신체검사를 받았고, 2001. 4. 17. 뇌경색증과 고혈압으로 인한 장애에 관하여경도의 장애등급 판정을 받았고, 2002. 2. 8. 뇌출혈로 인한 장애에 관하여도 경도의 장애등급 판정을 받았으며, 2008. 3. 17. 뇌경색증, 고혈압, 뇌출혈로 인한 장애에 관하여...