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 deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Army on June 29, 1966 and participated in the Vietnam War from November 1, 1966 to March 3, 1967, but was discharged from military service on May 31, 1968, and died on March 27, 201, while receiving support as recognition of potential aftereffects of defoliants and high blood pressure.

B. The Plaintiff, a spouse of the Deceased, was amended by the Act on Assistance to Patients Affected by Actual or Potential Diseases, Etc. (hereinafter “the Act”), and as such, was included in actual aftereffects of defoliants. On December 14, 2012, the Plaintiff was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants by the Defendant as an actual aftereffects of defoliants.

C. On April 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of bereaved family members suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant, claiming that the deceased died due to a her chronic heart disease, but the Defendant, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on October 10, 2013, notified the Defendant of non-existence of the requirements for application of the Act on defoliants (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Documents Nos. 1, 2, 6, and Eul Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 8

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On April 199, the Plaintiff asserted that he was diagnosed as a sacrife and had been under the influence of the sacrife, and had been continuously subject to the pharmacologic treatment thereafter. As such, the deceased died due to the sacratic heart disease and the merger thereof, or at least breadic heart disease and the merger thereof have aggravated the state of the deceased’s health beyond the natural progress, and caused the death of the deceased by significantly shortening the duration of his survival.

Therefore, the deceased died of her Hemical heart disease, an actual aftereffects of defoliants, and thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) medical opinions (i.e., death);