1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

In fact, on December 7, 2006, the Plaintiff was judged as Class 7 201 of the disability rating as wounded in action under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”) with respect to visual parts due to urine mergers caused by defoliants after defoliants during the Vietnam War.

On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination on the part of the urology with urology as a wounded patient on the ground of the lapse of the period of time. On August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff received a re-examination at the Daejeon Veterans Hospital. As a result of the physical examination, the “NPDR” was diagnosed as having been stild.

The former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended on June 27, 2012) did not have any separate items with respect to visual disability caused by “urinology”. However, the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended on June 29, 2012) provides that the grade 7 of the disability rating shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where there is a urinology urinology batosis in attached Table 4

On June 2012, the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State were amended, and the provision of the Enforcement Rule on the visual disability caused by urology was deleted, and where there is “contestation of urology” in the Enforcement Decree, a unique disability rating is provided as “Grade VII 7 1117” in the Enforcement Rule, and the criteria for recognition were strengthened as “persons who have shown abnormal opinions” in the Enforcement Rule.

(See the following relevant laws and regulations). On November 21, 2017, the Director of the Daejeon Regional Veterans Administration rendered a decision on non-eligible persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to apply the Act to the Plaintiff as follows.

After changing the classification of the physical examination classification of the veterans' name before changing the classification of the classification of the disease in the physical examination classification of the veterans' name, the plaintiff was found to have failed to meet the classification standards in A A's urology and below the grade standards, and the plaintiff was found to have passed an administrative litigation falling short of grade standards in class 7 201.