1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on May 15, 1969 and was discharged from military service on April 15, 1972 after he participated in the Vietnam War from March 24, 1970 to July 21, 1971.

B. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the “high blood pressure (high blood pressureoculsis), urine disease, and mathosis disease” occurred, and filed an application for registration of patients suffering from defoliants with the Defendant. On September 12, 2014, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s urine disease as actual aftereffects of defoliants, but on September 12, 2014, the Defendant decided that the disease was exempt from the application of the Act as to the mathovas disease among the diseases for which the Plaintiff applied for registration, and determined that the mathum pressure was recognized as potential aftereffects of defoliants, and that it falls short of the disability rating standards.

On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff received a written disposition from the Defendant on September 12, 2014, and did not file an administrative litigation within 90 days thereafter, and the part of the terminal blood disease and the high blood pressure in the application for registration did not have any effect on the non-argument.

In order for the plaintiff to dispute each of the above diseases, it is necessary to file a new application for registration and receive a new disposition, and file an administrative litigation.

Plaintiff

At the first date for pleading, the attorney stated that he did not dispute over the part of high blood pressure and the part of the terminal disease, but only claimed that he did not meet the rating standards for urine diseases.

In the below, it is necessary to judge whether the determination below the grade criteria for urologys is legitimate;

On October 24, 2014, the decision was made on October 24, 201 that the criteria for disability ratings were not satisfied.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 14; the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, such as gale, etc. due to urine diseases, which are actual aftereffects of defoliants, and the relevant disability rating is higher than Grade VII.