1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's disease constitutes a disease after defoliants in light of the following facts: (a) although multi-sex symptoms are known to be a disease caused by defoliants, and the connection or causal relationship with defoliant has not been medically identified until now; (b) it is currently established in academic circles; (c) although the plaintiff was diagnosed under the name of the disease called "the first diagnosis of the disease by high-level symptoms", there was no diagnosis of the disease by the first medical institution; (d) the plaintiff subjectively complained of the symptoms of multi-sex symptoms; (e) although the plaintiff complained of the symptoms of the second level of medical institutions, it is proved that the disease of the plaintiff is a part of the disease after the second level of medical institutions, which is the part of the disease of the first level, and thus, cannot be seen as a disease after defoliants; and (e) it is evident that the cause for the plaintiff's disease constitutes a disease during the process of establishing the Act on Support for Patients and Establishment of Related Associations (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept. A.

Article 2 subparagraph 2 (a) of the defoliant Act provides that during the period from July 18, 1964 to March 23, 1973, "persons discharged from active service or retired from military service after serving as military personnel or civilian employees under the Military Service Act, the Military Personnel Management Act, or the Act on the Management of Civilian Personnel in the Military Service, and reporters who participated in combat or military operations with approval from the Government (hereinafter referred to as "Vietnam War veteran") who suffers from a disease referred to in any subparagraph of Article 5 (1) shall be patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants."