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 5, 1964, the Plaintiff entered the Vietnam War from June 5, 1966 to May 22, 1969, but was discharged from military service on behalf of Captain on July 31, 1969.

B. The Plaintiff was recognized to have been suffering from defoliants. On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a physical examination for re-verification of the foregoing urology, etc. on August 23, 2016, and received a physical examination from the Central Veterans Hospital with the subject of the physical examination as a result of the physical examination conducted at the National Veterans Hospital with the internal department and with the eye, and was judged to be “less of the standard of rating” as the result of the physical examination. The Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated on November 21, 2016 as “less of the standard of rating.”

C. On November 29, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she was determined to fall short of the grading standard as a result of the physical examination of the disability classification of urinology, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff continued to receive medical treatment for urology in 1998. In light of the fact that there was a research result on the Plaintiff’s occurrence of more than 40% of her chronic urology patients, the Plaintiff’s above urology loss is a result of the combination of her urology recognized as the aftermath of defoliants. Thus, the Plaintiff’s disability rating falls under class 3 2402 (a person who has lost the function of an institution for urology) or class 4 2403 (a person who has a high level of functional disorder in an institution for urology and a voice), or at least Grade 6 3 (3) (a person who has a high level of functional disorder in an institution for urology) (a person who has lost at least 10% of her chronic urology patients, and thus, constitutes the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff’s above urology loss was unlawful.