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 October 21, 1970, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was discharged from military service on August 30, 1973, after having entered the Army on December 28, 1971 after having participated in the Vietnam War.

B. On March 26, 2013, the Deceased was recognized as having potential aftereffects of defoliants and was determined as having been “the degree of elevation” as a result of the physical examination of disability ratings.

C. On August 29, 2014, the Deceased died from pulmonary cancer (hereinafter “the instant injury”) and sprinke shock, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant on September 15, 2014, alleging that the instant injury constituted actual aftereffects of defoliants since it was an original lung cancer. However, on February 26, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff on February 26, 2015 on the ground that the instant injury was not the original disease but the disease was transferred from luminous cancer (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the deceased died of the primary lung cancer, an actual aftereffects of defoliants, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a bereaved family member of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, but the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. According to the above facts and the records of Gap evidence No. 2, it can be acknowledged that the deceased was diagnosed as waste cancer after being discharged in Vietnam as a soldier and served as a veteran, and died from waste blood shock shock therefrom. However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the medical record evaluation request for Samsung Seoul Hospital and the entire purport of the arguments against Samsung Seoul Hospital, the plaintiff was discharged from the National Masan Hospital on April 15, 2013 and received Maumbide dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dum