1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s husband B served in the military in the area where defoliants was sprayed adjacent to the Southern Limit Line from April 7, 1966 to September 25, 1968.

B. B filed an application for registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and around 1990, grade VII was judged to have been judged to have been different from the chronic system function and chest chief, and around 2002, grade VI was determined to have been determined.

C. On April 14, 2004, B filed an application for registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with respect to “Machopathal and urology”, and “Machopathal’s disease” was recognized as Grade 6(2)44 of the disability rating but was determined below the rating on the ground that there was no complication for urine disease.

B, on August 13, 2013, it was recognized as potential aftereffects of defoliants as a result of the physical examination of disability classification, and died on August 16, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “the net B”. (e)

On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of the death of injury with the Defendant, claiming that the deceased died due to aggravation of the terminal urology, an actual aftereffects of defoliants. On November 11, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the 6th emergency death decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, 11-14, Eul evidence 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion falls under class 5 of the disability rating under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, because the urology sharply aggravated two months before the death. However, at the time, the deceased did not apply for physical examination due to the critical condition and the treatment of the hospital.