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 July 14, 1964 and is serving military service.

October 28, 1967 was discharged from military service.

The plaintiff was dispatched to the Vietnam War from October 3, 1966 to September 19, 1967 during the military service period.

B. On June 23, 2014, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff was a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants as a person with a herthma’s heart disease (culism), and determined that the disability rating constitutes Class 6(2) (Classification number: 5108).

C. The defendant Na

After making the same decision as indicated in the paragraph, it is found that there is a ground to exclude the application of the Act stipulated in Article 79(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and the same on July 22, 2016

The decision in the subsection was revoked. D.

On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application to recognize himself/herself as a person subject to the application of the Act pursuant to Article 79(3) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State. On May 22, 2017, the Defendant recognized that he/she is an actual aftereffects of defoliants patient (c) and determined that his/her disability rating constitutes Class VII (Classification Number: 511) and notified the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had previously been subject to a disability rating under class 6(2) due to the Hemovascular heart disease, and that he did not have any subsequent status of the above recognized wounds.

Nevertheless, without any basis, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that the Plaintiff’s disability rating constituted class 7 lower than that of the former.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone reveals that the degree of the Plaintiff’s disability falls under the disability rating under class 6 and class 6(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.