1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of disability rating rendered to the Plaintiff on April 3, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 8, 1967, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on October 5, 1968 to January 6, 197 by the Vietnam War but due on June 6, 1970.

B. Pursuant to the Act on Assistance, etc. to Patients suffering from Actual aftereffects of defoliants, the Plaintiff was determined and registered as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and as a patient suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants. On July 10, 2007, as a result of the physical examination conducted by the Defendant around July 10, 2007, the Plaintiff was determined to fall short of the grading criteria for the urology, and for high blood pressure.

C. On November 9, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination with the Defendant stating “catherter, high blood pressure, and burine” as a different body (hereinafter “application for re-classification”). On December 16, 2011, the Plaintiff received a physical examination conducted at the National Veterans Hospital on December 16, 201, and on March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was determined as class 5 and class 45 (the catology of both eyes 0.1 and 0.1 respectively), and with respect to high blood pressure, to fall short of the previous grade criteria.

Accordingly, on April 3, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the physical examination that “Before the change: Class 6 (Grade 6(2) of urinology, below the level of high blood pressure), and Grade 5 (Grade 5 of urinology, below the level of high blood pressure).”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, “A” No. 1, “B”, “No. 1, and “B” No. 22-6 (including numbers that do not indicate any of the numbers among those with virtual numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant stated the Plaintiff’s disability rating as “Class 5” only while rendering the instant disposition, but did not state the specific grounds for having received the determination of Grade 5 due to any injury. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful against Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The Plaintiff is actual aftereffects of defoliants.