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 April 3, 1970, the Plaintiff entered the Army from April 2, 1971 to February 28, 1973, and was discharged from the Vietnam War on February 22, 1973, and was determined to be subject to the application of the Act on the Support, etc. for Patients suffering from Actual aftereffects of defoliants with respect to “high blood pressure and toxic blood heart disease” caused by defoliants that was sprayed at the time of the Vietnam War, and was determined to be subject to the application of the Act on the Support, etc. for Patients suffering from Actual aftereffects of defoliants with respect to “high blood pressure and toxic blood heart disease,” and the class thereof was determined to have the high pressure on blood pressure, and the toxic heart disease was judged to have failed to meet the grading standard.

B. On August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for the registration of “unborn cancer,” and the Defendant conducted a physical examination to determine the degree of disability of the Plaintiff on September 9, 2013 after the Plaintiff’s determination of the subject matter of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on Persons, etc.”) to which the degree of disability of the Plaintiff applied mutatis mutandis under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, and Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

However, on January 20, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that determined the Plaintiff’s disability rating under Grade 6(1)5203 as of February 7, 2014, following the deliberation and resolution that the Plaintiff’s disability rating falls under class 6(1)5203 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.

C. The Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit against the instant disposition without going through the previous trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1's evidence, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, after executing the accumulated recovery surgery, has fully lost the function of the reproductive organ due to the legacy, and has suffered pain due to serious mergers, such as cryp, etc.

In the past, patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants.