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 October 7, 1963, the Plaintiff’s spouse B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”), was discharged from military service on August 31, 1966 after the Vietnam War.

B. On December 18, 2002, the Republic of Korea claimed that defoliants had occurred due to high blood pressure, terminal plant diseases, and locally, during the Vietnam War, and filed an application for registration of patients suffering from defoliants (patient), but it was recognized as having been subject to potential aftereffects of defoliants only, and on April 22, 2003, it was determined as “multi-cerebral Marinae” and registered as a patient suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants.

C. On September 11, 2014, the deceased was administered in and died of the apartment located in the apartment, and the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased died due to “vertebch chron (inverte, necked part), detailed local ebrate, trauma stress, and depression,” and on September 23, 2014, filed an application for the registration of bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, but the Defendant on December 22, 2014, against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased cannot verify the fact that the deceased was diagnosed as actual aftereffects of defoliants, and there is no supporting material to prove that the deceased died of actual aftereffects of defoliants” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 11, Eul evidence 1 through 6, 8, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was recognized as a patient suffering from defoliants with his multi-sexual intercourse. The Damsis is the same disease with the horses after defoliants, which is the aftermathy, and the deceased was committed suicide on the 15th apartment floor because it was impossible for the deceased to check serious pains caused by this disease. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes the bereaved family of actual aftereffects of defoliants.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

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

C. Determination 1 is the bereaved family member suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants.