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 June 12, 1965, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on September 14, 1968 through August 4, 1969 on March 31, 1979 after the Vietnam War was discharged from military service.

B. On July 24, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants who had applied for the registration of neutism, mathalosis-turosis, epidemosis, chronic helurosis, and inter-regional diseases, and registered and decided as patients suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants on November 26, 2002. However, around January 14, 2003, the Plaintiff was determined as having failed to meet the disability grade standard for chronic helur in a new physical examination for disability ratings.

C. On December 20, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination of patients suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant. However, on April 24, 2003, the Plaintiff received non-specific determination as to psychotropic disorders, and Machopathal diseases.

After that, on January 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a re-verification physical examination with the defendant on January 12, 2012, and received a re-verification physical examination from the Central Veterans Hospital, but according to the opinion of the medical specialist to charge that the result of the physical examination does not cause a wide range of expansion, the plaintiff was judged to fall short of the grading standard.

E. On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a re-verification physical examination with the Defendant, who was suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants, to undergo a re-verification physical examination, and conducted a re-verification physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital on September 15, 2014. However, the medical opinion was presented that the degree of disability falls short of the degree of disability according to the opinion “less than 18% on the physical surface.” On May 11, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the physical examination (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 14, Eul evidence 15-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant disposition is lawful.