고엽제후유(의)증환자비해당결정취소
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that seeks the revocation of a non-subject-subject decision disposition under the law applied on October 28, 2017 shall be dismissed.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 13, 1964, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a private soldier and served in the Vietnam War from October 16, 1965 to August 7, 1966, and discharged the Plaintiff from military service on October 8, 1966.
B. From around 2002 to around 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of patients suffering from defoliants pursuant to the Act on Assistance to Patients from Actual or Potential Diseases, Etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (hereinafter “Pacciny Act”).
The Plaintiff was determined to be subject to the application of the law that “high blood pressure, cerebrovascular, and urology” among the injury and disease caused by the application but falls short of the disability grade prescribed by the defoliant Act.” The Plaintiff was determined not to be subject to the application of the law that “this shall not be subject to potential aftereffects of defoliants,” and that “the same culrosis, nephalopsis,” does not constitute potential aftereffects of defoliants.
C. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with respect to “competence and serious psychotropic disorder.” However, on October 28, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to apply the Act on the ground that the Defendant rendered a decision on the application of the Act on the ground that “the fact that it does not seem to fall under the category of cerebriformosis, which is already recognized as a result of the psychotropic examination and the self-scopic image examination.”
On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of cerebrovascular and psychotropic dementia (the Plaintiff with psychotropic disorder was applied for registration of the “cerebral Dementia”, but the psychotropic dementia does not provide for the “cerebral Dementia” as a certificate of defoliants under the defoliant Act. However, there is only room to regard the Plaintiff’s application for registration of the “cerebral Dementia” as a symptoms belonging to the “serious disorder.” The Defendant also filed an application for registration of the Plaintiff’s “cerebral Dementia” on the premise that the Plaintiff deemed the application for registration of the “cerebral Dementia” as the application for registration of the “serious disorder.” The Defendant again filed an application for registration of the “cerebral Dementia”, urology, and the Korean Veterans Hospital received a physical examination of each applicant’s disease at the Central Veterans Hospital.
The defendant shall, according to the medical examination opinions of medical specialists who conduct the inspection, be as follows: