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 September 4, 1970, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on July 12, 1973 after the Vietnam War from June 1, 1971 to April 1, 1972 while serving in the Army.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant, and recognized the “heremic heart disease (hereinafter “the instant disease”) as actual aftereffects of defoliants. However, on November 13, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition on February 27, 2015 on the ground that, based on the results of physical examination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital, the Board of Patriots and Veterans decided on November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff did not meet the grading standards on the ground that there was no merger objection regarding the instant disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's principal values were diagnosed as "a scarcity of an missing person and a detailed scarcity of an missing person," and the plaintiff's opinion that the compromise of about 20% is observed on abandonment of the ornamental scarcity and currently being treated as "a scarcity". The difference in this case constitutes the criteria for disability rating under Article 14 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter "the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State"), and Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State. However, the disposition of this case, which

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

C. In fact, (1) The Plaintiff’s name of diagnosis of the doctor’s (Korean Yangyang University Hospital): The following is objectively assessed: (2) the Plaintiff’s name of diagnosis of the doctor’s (Korean Yangyang University Hospital) is subjective; (3) the Plaintiff’s name of diagnosis of the body entrusted to the director of the Central University Hospital of this Court on the basis of the fact that he was able to infer about 20 per cent of the abandonment of the flusium from June 2014, with the plebing that occurred from June 2014.