1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 25, 1971, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on March 28, 1974 after the Vietnam War from August 25, 1972 to February 22, 1973.

B. On February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a patient suffering from defoliants to the Defendant, who was recognized as having been suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants, but was determined below the grade criteria for each of the above diseases, in the physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital for the classification of the degree of disability for the high-tension and the psychotropic disorder.

C. On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of patients suffering from defoliants on July 3, 2012 with respect to “here-cerebrovascular type” with respect to “here-patient type,” but the Defendant, on December 10, 2012, notified the Plaintiff that the pertinent disease did not constitute actual aftereffects of defoliants or potential aftereffects of defoliants.

On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of cerebrovascular infection with the Defendant, and subsequently, was recognized as potential aftereffects of defoliants, but thereafter determined that the Plaintiff failed to meet the standards for classification in the physical examination of the Central Veterans Hospital for the classification of disability grades in relation to “high blood pressure, psychotropical disorder, and newly recognized as potential aftereffects of defoliants” (hereinafter “instant physical examination”).

E. On December 9, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination that the disability grade was below the standard as a result of the physical examination of “cerebrovascular, neutism, and psychotropic pressure” (hereinafter “the instant disease”).

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case". 【No ground for recognition' exists, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, 3 through 5 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.