1. On March 9, 2012, the Defendant’s decision to revoke the Plaintiff’s non-existence of class 7 injury death.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the spouse of B, and B entered the Army on May 4, 1964, and was discharged from military service on September 6, 1965 to November 20, 196, after having participated in the Vietnam War, the plaintiff was discharged from military service on January 7, 1967.

B. On August 14, 2008, the physical examination conducted at the Seoul Veterans Hospital on August 14, 2008, after being recognized as wounded in action and registered as a person of distinguished service to the State whose disability grade was Grade VII.

C. B treatment of urology, etc. at the Seoul Veterans Hospital, etc. on November 24, 2011, the Kimpo-si Hospital died of a difficult pulmonon disorder caused by urology due to urine and high blood pressure, brain pulmonary fladye, pulmonary pulmonary flady, and pulmonary pulmonary urine.

On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that B died of the instant wound, and sought compensation for bereaved family’s compensation. However, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation between B’s causes of death with urology on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a causal relation between B’s causes of death with urology since objective data to recognize that B died of the instant wound, or caused death with urology due to the cause of urology (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, and Eul 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B caused cathosis of a serious merger witness of catherosis due to the instant wound’s urology and high blood pressure, and thereafter, died due to cerebral chatology. As such, as the catal urology of B was in proximate causal relation with cathosis, the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes death as the cause of the instant difference.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. Article 6(1) of the Act on Assistance, etc. to Patients suffering from Actual or Potential aftereffects of defoliants is the disability of those persons determined to be patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants.