A. On December 7, 2006, the Plaintiff received a grade 7 grade 201 (the corrected eyesight of one eye less than 0.06) of the disability rating on the visual part of the body from the Defendant’s urology due to defoliants.

B. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination on the part of the internal medicine with the name of the disease as urology with the Defendant as urology.

C. On November 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a non-eligible decision for the application of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s internal department was below the same grade standard as that of the previous case, and that there was no urology merger in the previous class 7 as to the inner part, and that the disability rating was lowered due to the lack of the grade standard due to the lack of urology in the previous class.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. It is unlawful to change a disability rating more disadvantageous than that of the existing disability rating with respect to the part of the disposition of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. In full view of the language, structure, etc. of Article 2(1) and (2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Assistance to Patients suffering from Actual or Potential Diseases, Etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2014, Nov. 24, 2014), Article 2(1) of the Addenda provides that disability ratings shall be determined in accordance with the revised criteria if physical examinations were conducted after the enforcement of the revised criteria. Article 2(2) of the Addenda provides that disability ratings shall be determined in cases where physical examinations are conducted for patients suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants who suffered from potential aftereffects of defoliants, etc. who suffered from potential aftereffects of defoliants, and for the reason that disability ratings should be lowered solely on the ground that the statutory provisions were amended, even if the physical examination conducted after the implementation of the revised guidelines.

Supreme Court Decision 9 Decided November 9, 2017