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 August 23, 1969, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in the area where defoliants was sprayed in Korea from September 2, 1969 to September 24, 1971, and discharged from the military on March 31, 1996, and was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants.

B. On September 13, 2007, the Plaintiff was determined to fall short of the grading standard as a result of a new physical examination, but was determined to fall short of class standards, on July 8, 201, as “Class 7 202” upon the diagnosis of “non-duplicated urology urology certificate” in a physical examination for confirmation on July 8, 20

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for a physical examination for reclassification on November 11, 201, but the Defendant sent a reply on April 13, 2012, stating that “The Defendant was determined as the same disability rating as the existing and was changed to Grade 7, class 202 through class 7, class 201.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “existing Disposition”).

On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the above grading with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission did not properly measure the Plaintiff’s vision on July 2, 2012, and accordingly, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission did not conduct a thorough procedure for measuring the Plaintiff’s vision. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition on April 13, 2012, separate from conducting a accurate physical examination, is unlawful.

“The revocation was made on the ground that it was revoked.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant adjudication”).

On April 10, 2013, the defendant conducted a physical examination including the plaintiff's vision, and conducted a physical examination again on April 10, 2013, on the ground that the plaintiff's optourology falls under non-dive urology, and on the ground that the plaintiff's optourology falls under class 7, class 201 (a person whose optourology of one eye is not more than 0.06 and whose optourology of two eyes is not more than 0.6 respectively) and class 702 (a person whose optourology of two eyes is not less than 1/4 of the average person's ability due to future reasons, such as chestbal organs, etc.) and made a disposition of class 7 of the same

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 4, Eul 10 to 21, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 disability rating.