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’s father B (hereinafter “the father”) entered the Gun on November 19, 1964 and was dispatched from the Vietnam War on June 17, 1966 to June 12, 1967, and was discharged from military service on July 22, 1967 after returning to the Republic of Korea.

B. On April 22, 2009, the Deceased applied for registration of patients suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants to the Defendant, and was recognized as potential aftereffects of defoliants on June 11, 2009.

On the other hand, on May 31, 2009, the Deceased died from the Central Veterans Hospital’s direct death on the death diagnosis report, as the “multi-sarry long-term cryption report,” and as the “marry cryp cancer,” the preceding death.

C. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Deceased was a patient suffering from suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and that the Plaintiff obtained spinal febrates corresponding to the disease of the second-generation patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and filed an application for registration of the second-generation patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on Assistance to Patients suffering from Actual aftereffects of defoliants, Etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (hereinafter “Special Act”).

However, on November 14, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for registration on the ground that the deceased died of potential aftereffects of defoliants during his existence, but did not have been recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as a second-generation patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and sought revocation of the instant disposition to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 7, and 8, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a urology patient who was suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and the Plaintiff’s son was a vertebrate patient who fell under the disease of the second-generation patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for registration of the second-generation patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants should be revoked as

3. Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Determination

A. The Act on defoliant, defoliant, etc.