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 spouse B entered the Army on May 13, 1966 and was Vietnam War from March 10, 1967 to April 5, 1968, and was discharged from military service on April 26, 1969.

B. On October 10, 1997, B filed an application for registration of defoliants patients with the Suwon Veterans' Office, and received the judgment of "do" with respect to the injury and disease from defoliants patients at the Seoul Veterans' Hospital, and on September 24, 1998, “Sari,” and applied for an additional medical examination, and on December 17, 1999, the judgment of "Sarido,” was issued with respect to the injury and disease from "Jaripathal, urology, and high blood pressure," and on December 12, 2005, the judgment of "Sarido,” was issued with respect to the injury and disease from "Sarido," "Sarithalopathal, nephalopathal, nephalopa, and epidemum infection."

C. After that, the urinary disease, which was suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants, was converted to actual aftereffects of defoliants, and was judged as Grade 7, 702, and 201 on the physical examination conducted on April 17, 2002, and registered as a person of distinguished service to the State, and thereafter, was judged as having the same urinary disease as that of the previous urinary disease in the physical examination conducted on December 12, 2005 and January 25, 2008. On February 14, 2008, the urinary disease was judged as Grade 7, 401.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant wound”) d. Mediology referring to the urology of the urology.

B A. On June 14, 2008, the Plaintiff died, and on June 24, 2013, filed an application for change of status on the ground that the Plaintiff died on the ground that the instant difference was caused, the Defendant made a disposition on August 27, 2013 that the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff as the deceased on September 16, 2013 as the cause of the instant difference (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 25, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap, Gap, 1, 7, 9, 10.