1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Army on February 3, 1971 and was discharged from military service on December 3, 1973 after the Vietnam War from April 9, 1972 to February 9, 1973.

B. On November 20, 1998, the Plaintiff registered as a war veterans in the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, and was determined as the subject of the application of the Act on patient support and establishment of related associations by filing an application for registration of a patient with the Defendant for a high-child aftermathing disease (fluence).

On December 17, 2008, an application for the recognition of the disease in question on August 23, 2003, nephalsis, chronic hemosis, high blood pressure, nephical hemmetric pressure (medical pressure) on December 17, 2008, nephal hemosis (medical certificate) on February 20, 2013.

C. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a physical examination to the Defendant for a rating of injury with respect to high blood pressure, urology, and liver infection recognized as defoliant’s symptoms. However, on September 8, 2015, the physical examination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital on September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff determined that the high blood pressure and liver infection, which was potential for actual aftereffects of defoliants, were below the rating standards, and the urology was presented below the rating standards, and the judgment of the Board of Patriots and Veterans rendered a decision that it does not meet the rating standards set forth in attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Persons of Distinguished

On December 21, 2015, the Defendant notified that the results of the physical examination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital for urine diseases, who are actual aftereffects of defoliants, and that the results of the review conducted by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to fall short of the grading standards (the following dispositions were taken).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, each subparagraph of Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is governed by the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that no aftermatha has been affected by defoliants due to Vietnam War.