1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The grounds for this court’s explanation are as follows, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the grounds for this court’s explanation are the same as the grounds for the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal or

In addition, the part written or added to the judgment of the court of first instance reveals the opinion that "the judgment is judged" No. 9 of the fifth fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance, and added the opinion that "The Damage Tunnels Epicia generally takes place in the hand tunnel, which is located in the front part of the handline among the route of neutism, and mainly occurs in the hand tunnel, which is located in the middle of the handline, and mainly in use or vocational reasons, but generally there is no ground to deeming the Damage Tunnels Epicia as a disease caused by the exposure to defoliants."

Part 5 (10) "This Court" is dismissed as "court of the first instance", and the part 11 "the results of fact inquiry" is added to "the results of fact inquiry into the Korean Medical Association of this Court".

Part VII of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. â………§ 8 of the plaintiffâ………§).

6) Examining the facts in light of the legislative intent and contents of the defoliant Act that the Plaintiff was a Vietnam War veteran and suffered from the defoliants, the Plaintiff’s disease cannot be deemed to fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of the defoliant Act, such as where the Plaintiff’s disease can be recognized as a psychotropic disease, or where the Plaintiff’s disease is regarded as a liverer, the left-hand ex-post disease, as diagnosed by the Central Veterans Hospital, as the Plaintiff diagnosed by the Central Veterans Hospital, even if the disease is deemed as a liverer, the circumstance as seen in the foregoing recognition cannot be deemed to fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of the defoliant Act (as seen in the foregoing, the disease is generally known to have no connection with defoliants).