1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After having entered the Army on May 19, 1966, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on December 2, 1966 through September 29, 1967, and on two occasions from April 4, 1968 to July 18, 1969, after having been discharged from military service on August 14, 1969.

B. On May 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for new registration of potential aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant, claiming that he/she was suffering from exposure to defoliants during the Vietnam War, during his/her Vietnam War, and was found to have been recognized as suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants with respect to high blood pressure and cerebrovassis.

C. Around March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of potential aftereffects of defoliants against “serious disorders, cerebral cerebrovascularism, accompanied by cerebral cerebral Organisms,” and the Defendant, around November 16, 2012, rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s non-conformity of potential aftereffects of defoliants with respect to “cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Organisms, accompanied by cerebral Organisms,” and issued a decision on the determination below the grade criteria (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a cerebral disorder, which was not completely cured at the time of the instant disposition, and it cannot be readily concluded due to cerebral cerebral typhism, which is an existing injury. Even if the cerebral typhism was caused by cerebral typhism, the Plaintiff’s assertion should be recognized as having been affected by potential aftereffectsal typhism separate from cerebral typhism.

B. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. (1) Determination 1) Fact-finding (A) fact-finding on the determination of the cerebrovascular disorder accompanied by the brain laboratory (A) fact-finding (1) fact-finding on the examination conducted on October 11, 2012, that it is not possible to verify anti-psychotropic medication among the blood transfusion (ney department) and not recorded on medication, and that there is no record on medication (2) medical record appraisal request.