1. The Defendant’s decision on disability ratings rendered to the Plaintiff on June 16, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on August 1, 1970 and was discharged from the military service on October 18, 1972 to June 7, 1973 after the Vietnam War.

B. On August 9, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for registration of patients suffering from defoliants to the Defendant, and registered and determined as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and as patients suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants with respect to high blood pressure. As a result of the physical examination to classify the degree of disability and the degree of disability, around October 12, 2005, the Plaintiff was determined as disability rating of class 702 with respect to urology and high blood pressure.

C. On July 21, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination of urology and high blood pressure with the Defendant. On December 5, 201, as a result of the physical examination for the classification of disability ratings and disability ratings, the Plaintiff received the determination of grade of disability with the same content as that of the previous disability (hereinafter “previous disposition”) in accordance with the opinion that the urology, actual aftereffects of defoliants, falls under disability ratings 7, 202, and 702, and that the high blood pressure, actual aftereffects of defoliants, as potential aftereffects of defoliants, falls short of the disability grade due to the lack of a meology by a medical specialist, and that it falls under the meanthy disability of a medical specialist, due to the lack of meancy, and that it constitutes a uranthy disability of a medical specialist in infection

On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed for a re-examination on high blood pressure, potential aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant, and received a physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital for the classification of disability grades, but on May 28, 2015, presented a medical opinion that kidy and medical specialists do not have any contact with each other, and determined that the disability grade standard is below the disability standard by presenting a medical opinion that kidy and medical specialists do not have any contact with each other. Accordingly, on June 16, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the re-examination on defoliants that the high blood pressure, recognized as potential aftereffects of defoliants as potential aftereffects of defoliants, falls short of the disability grade standard (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2.