2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts shall be recognized by each entry in the evidence of Nos. 1 through 10, in which there is no dispute between the parties or between the parties:

A. On August 30, 1995, the Plaintiff’s husband’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

B. However, on December 9, 1995, prior to being determined as being subject to the application of the law as above, the two-hee had already died due to Kanam. Accordingly, on April 18, 1996, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration as a bereaved family member of the patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants. However, on December 27, 1996, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the inter-scaram, which is the cause of the death of the two-scar, did not constitute actual aftereffects of defoliants.

2. The issues and judgment of the instant case

Article 7 (1) of the Act provides that "the bereaved family members of a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs, who are the bereaved family members of a person suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, who falls under Article 5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "bereaved family members of a person suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, etc.") shall be deemed to be the bereaved family members of a person killed in actual aftereffects of defoliants under Article 4 (1) 3 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, and compensation shall be paid under the conditions as prescribed by the Act."

However, with respect to the meaning of the "disease caused by 'exploitation' in the above provision, the defendant means only actual aftereffects of defoliants, while the plaintiff asserts that not only actual aftereffects of defoliants but also potential aftereffects of defoliants is included. Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the disease caused by 'exploitation' in Article 7 (1) 2 of the Act included potential aftereffects of defoliants.

Therefore, according to Article 6(1) through (4) of the Act, where a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants is determined to be a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants in the course of the treatment, the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs shall determine whether the patient is a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants through the medical examination of the veterans hospital and the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement. Article 7(1)2 of the Act provides that “the person determined as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants in the course of the treatment under Article 6 of the Act and died before the determination of whether the patient is a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants is a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants” shall be included in the person subject to application of Article 6(1)2 of the Act. Accordingly, “the disease resulting from the solid occupational agents” as referred to in Article 7(1)2 of the Act means only actual aftereffects of defoliants, and it is correct that the disease does not fall under actual aftereffects of defoliants of defoliants is included in the degree of actual aftereffects of defoliants of defoliants.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit and the disposition of this case is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Judge)