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 father B (hereinafter “the father”) entered the Army on August 27, 1966 and participated in the Vietnam War from July 1967, and was discharged from military service on August 2, 1969.

B. On March 26, 2007, the Deceased was recognized as having potential aftereffectss and cerebral typosiss from the Defendant. On September 5, 2007 and November 23, 2007, the Deceased was determined to have failed to meet all grading standards for high blood pressures and cerebral typosiss. After applying for a physical examination for re-verification of high blood pressures and cerebral typosiss, however, on May 3, 2010, the Deceased was determined to have failed to meet re-rating standards.

C. On May 22, 2014, the Deceased filed an application with the Defendant for re-registration of patients suffering from defoliants with “waste cancer, extractment cancer, and liver cancer” as the applicant’s disease, and died on May 30, 2014, which was eight (8) days after defoliants.

On August 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) recognized only the “dexum cancer” as potential aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to Article 3(2)12 of the Act on Assistance to Patients, etc. and Establishment of Related Associations; (b) determined the application as “dexum” according to the results of the physical examination for the classification of disability grades; and (c) determined that only the “dexum cancer” was potential as potential aftereffects

E. On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-examination on the ground that the deceased’s lung cancer was primary lung cancer. On December 15, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a non-applicable decision on the application of the defoliant Act to the effect that “The Plaintiff, on December 15, 2014, there is a high possibility of fibrotic disease in which RUL was previously transferred, and FDG (FIO Dey Glcose, radioactive drugs) in the PET/CT, did not fall under actual aftereffects of defoliants.”

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for Recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the central veterans hospital of the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff observed various blood tests on the Deceased, the species index, and the celebling of the Deceased.