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 husband B (hereinafter "the deceased") participated in Vietnam on April 7, 1966 to September 25, 1968.

B. On 190, the Deceased was judged to be judged to be Grade 7 due to the impairment of the function of the Seongbuk system and the chest chief, and around 200, the Deceased was judged to be Grade 6.

C. On April 14, 2004, the Deceased filed an application for registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with respect to “mathalosis and urology,” and the judgment below was rendered as to “mathal disease,” even though it was recognized as 6th class 2(44) due to non-fluoral urine, but there was no proof of urine disease to prove that urine was combined with urology.

On August 13, 2013, the Deceased was determined as having been additionally recognized as having potential aftereffects of defoliants, and died on August 16, 2014 thereafter, the deceased was determined as having been suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants, and on August 16, 2014, the death diagnosis report is deemed as having been directly conducted by the deceased, and the former is deemed as having been conducted by the “satise dysatum”, the former is deemed as having been conducted by the former, the “satise dysatum”, the

E. Meanwhile, before the death, the Deceased was examined at least twice at least 3.0g/dl with the concentration of the blood-related cirratine, and the cause was expressed that the cause was attributable to the chronic renal failure due to the cirratization.

F. On November 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, asserted that the deceased died of suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant. On November 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to dismiss the application for registration of bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants on the ground that the Plaintiff’s suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants was registered, and does not meet the requirements under Article 8 of the Act on Support for Patients from Actual aftereffects of defoliants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 8, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion.