2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 27, 1965, the Plaintiff entered the Navy as a long-term staff member, and was discharged from military service on September 2, 1967 through April 16, 1968 after the Vietnam War was discharged from military service on December 31, 1972.

B. Around September 2003, the Plaintiff performed a surgery on the fourth amam, and received the determination of actual aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to the Act on Assistance, etc. to Patients suffering from Actual or Potential aftereffects of defoliants (hereinafter “HHA”). On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On September 11, 2013, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff’s above injury was subject to the application of the defoliant Act, and then conducted a physical examination with the Plaintiff at the Central Veterans Hospital on June 11, 2013, and then disposed of non-subject matter to the application of the defoliant Act.

C. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff received notification from the Defendant on January 8, 2014, on the ground that the result of the sexual function test conducted after the operation of the pre-permanent cancer was judged to have been donated prior to the contribution, following a physical examination conducted at the Central Veterans Hospital for the classification of disability ratings on September 13, 2013.

Then, on March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a physical reexamination and presented opinions that the Plaintiff falls under class 5,202 (a person who completely lost reproductive technology) from the new examination of the National Veterans Hospital, but the Board of Patriots and Veterans decided that the Plaintiff’s disability rating falls under class 6, Paragraph 1, 5203 of class 6, which was the same as that of the previous injury rating, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on November 6, 2014 that the change in physical examination was made without physical examination.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists on the ground of recognition, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant case was affected by the instant injury, and received a surgery for inserting the form of a sexual flag’s official bulletin after undergoing the climatic cancer surgery on or around June 2013.