1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 23, 2008, the deceased B (Cre, hereinafter “the deceased”) was found to be a dead body in his residence.

The plaintiff is the deceased's spouse.

B. Based on Article 8(2) of the Act on Assistance to Patients suffering from Actual or Potential aftereffects of defoliants, Etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (hereinafter “Gradicul Act”), the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the ground that “the deceased died of actual aftereffects of defoliants, etc.” (hereinafter “Cradicul Act”).

C. On August 6, 2013, the Defendant rendered a “decision on non-applicable measures to the bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff “it is not possible to verify the merger of urines at all, and there is a doubt that the 4th urine is suspected, and the accurate private person is unknown.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7, 8, 12, 13 evidence, Eul 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds delineated below the Plaintiff’s assertion.

1) As the Deceased, in violation of the relevant statute, was suffering from suffering from defoliant, skin infection, and highly infected infection at the time of his/her death, the Plaintiff ought to be subject to the application of the defoliant Act. (2) Although the Act violated the principle of proportionality protects patients suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants, it violates the principle of proportionality to exclude the deceased and their bereaved family members who were patients suffering from suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, but were patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, from the scope of protection.

In addition, since the Act on defoliants is a mutually beneficial law, the range of recognition is wide enough to allow the guarantee of livelihood for the bereaved families of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants. If there is any error in data submitted by the bereaved families during the process of recognition, it is consistent with the principle of proportionality with the penal provisions of Article 33 of the Act on

In violation of the principle of equality, the Deceased violates the principle of equality, from April 15, 2008 to May 31, 2008, 13 times in total from DBurology clinic.