1. On January 4, 2017, the decision that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 4, 2017 (Grade VII) was revoked.

2...

1. The plaintiff entered the Army on November 7, 1969 and participated in the Vietnam War from November 24, 1970 to December 21, 1971, but was discharged from military service on October 12, 1972.

In around 2005, the Plaintiff applied for registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants to the Defendant on the ground of “urine disease” and was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants through a medical examination at a veterans hospital, and was registered as a person of distinguished service to the State (Grade VII) after having been determined at Grade VII in a physical examination for the determination of disability rating.

Since then, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination of urology on around 2006, around 2009, and around 2012, and both were determined as class 7 of the same disability rating as the previous ones.

In other words, on March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for a re-examination on the grounds that it seems that the “urine disease” (hereinafter referred to as “urine disease”) did not seem to have snow about the instant difference.

On May 16, 2016, the results of the physical examination conducted by the central veterans hospital: (a) it was determined that a medical specialist of the national veterans hospital was “non-surgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic urgic son,” and (b) it was determined that the instant wounds did not meet the criteria for disability rating; and (c) accordingly, on January 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on January 4, 2017 that “The Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State” (hereinafter referred to as “the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”) to be “non-surgic sonic urgic dia.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was determined as a disability rating 7 and registered as a person of distinguished service to the State.