The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On August 4, 2014, the Defendant registered the bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Plaintiff.

1. (i) On October 19, 1966, B, the husband of the Plaintiff, entered the Army and participated in the Vietnam War from August 16, 1969 to September 4, 1970, and was discharged on March 29, 1972.

B On March 10, 1997, upon filing an application for the registration of defoliant patients with regard to “the neutism, nephalopism, chronic hemosis, nephism, and eutism,” it was judged on May 4, 1998 as to “the neutism.”

B on May 13, 2011, she filed an application for a re-examination of “fluoral transfusion, cerebral chronology,” and on November 29, 201, she was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants and as potential aftereffects of defoliants with respect to “fluoral and cerebral chronology,” but all of the results of the physical examination was determined as falling short of the standards.

B On February 9, 2012, it was judged as having been judged as having been potential for potential aftereffects of defoliants.

Referencely, B died on July 12, 2014, and the direct master is “Weekam, Madam (liver, and Madam)”.

On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, the spouse of B, filed an application for the registration of bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant that B died of urine disease, the actual aftereffects of defoliants.

However, on August 4, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for registration as bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants on the ground that it did not meet the requirements under Article 8 of the former Act on Assistance to Patients from Actual aftereffects of defoliants (amended by Act No. 13605, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter “The High School Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-6, Eul 3, the purport of the whole argument

2. The legality of disposition.

A. Article 8 of the Plaintiff’s assertion of defoliants provides for compensation to protect the bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and does not provide for restricting the rights of the bereaved family members.

According to the purport of Article 8, "registration" under Article 8 (1) of the defoliant Act.