1. The Defendant’s revocation of the disability rating rendered to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 11, 2011, the Plaintiff, who was discharged from the Vietnam War in 1968 to 1969, filed an application for registration of a patient suffering from defoliants with the name of disease "multi-malutism " and was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants and cerebral typhism disease, respectively.

B. After that, in determining the degree of injury of the Manenenene’s disease recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants on February 9, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) judged Class 6 grade 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21686, Aug. 13, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act”); (b) was judged as having been judged as having been seriously ill-explosive; (c) on February 14, 2012, notified the Defendant of the results of the physical examination of the said defoliants; and (d) applied for a re-examination on March 13, 2012.

C. On September 5, 2012, the result of the reexamination conducted on September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff rendered the judgment of Grade 6(2) on the Maline’s disease identical to that of the relocation, and was judged to have a serious degree of cerebral typhism. On September 10, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, each entry in Gap 1-11, and Eul 1-5 (including serial numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a 2nd class 101 (Article 6(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (Article 6(2)4 (Article 6(4) of the Act, subject to partial restriction on employment due to a psychotropic disorder); however, the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under a 2nd class 101 (Article 6(2)4 of the Act, since the Plaintiff cannot work alone without any aid from the nearby area.).

In addition, even though there is no brain fluoral symptoms, the plaintiff conducted a brain fluoral diagnosis on the basis of old brain fluoral disease caused by traffic accidents in 1986, and the plaintiff does not walk due to brain fluoral.