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 was discharged from military service on March 8, 1973 after he participated in Vietnam around February 1972 while serving in the Vietnam War on April 19, 1970.

B. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant, and was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants, but the Defendant received a judgment below the rating standard on November 11, 2014 on the ground that there was no merger complaint.

C. On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for a physical examination for reexamination with the Defendant, and on June 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff that the instant wound fell short of the grading standards for the same reasons as the previous one (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant wound continued to be subject to drug treatment after having been subject to crypology, becopic surgery and scopic surgery. Article 14 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons, etc.”) and Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, and Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, constitutes a disability rating of “persons in need of drug treatment after being subject to internal arbitration due to scopic heart diseases,” and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination of whether patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants are registered as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants and the Act on Assistance to Patients and Establishment of Related Associations (hereinafter “PS Act”)

In order to be eligible for compensation as prescribed in Article 6(1), it is not sufficient to say that the instant wound occurred. Furthermore, the degree of disability caused by the instant wound is stipulated in Article 6-4(1) and (2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.