1. The Defendant’s disposition of disability rating rendered to the Plaintiff on September 22, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on June 29, 1967 and was discharged from military service on June 27, 1970 after he participated in the Vietnam War from December 1, 1968 to May 1, 1970.

B. The Plaintiff was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants and as potential aftereffects of defoliants against the Defendant, on the ground that the Vietnam War was exposed to defoliants, and that the Maternal Disease was caused, and applied for registration of patients suffering from defoliants.

C. On February 9, 2012, the Plaintiff was judged as having been on the part of the Defendant with respect to “machopathic disease” under Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21686, Aug. 13, 2009) and “mathic disease” under Article 14(2)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No.

Accordingly, on March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a new physical examination, and on September 10, 2012, the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff the same judgment as before on September 10, 2012 with respect to “mathal disease” under class 6 (2) 44, and with respect to “cerebrovascular disease,” respectively. D.

On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disability rating of the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability rating constitutes class 2, class 102 of the above [Attachment Table 3] stipulated in the above [Attachment Table 3] [Attachment Table 3] [Attachment Table 3] (any person who needs other person’s help and protection from time to time due to a high-level mental or chronic disorder).” The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disability rating of the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability rating constitutes class 33 (a person who is unable to engage in labor during his/her birth due to a functional disorder of the new system) of class 33 of the above [Attachment 3].”

Accordingly, the defendant appealed (Seoul High Court 2013Nu31679), and the defendant has made a recommendation for mediation by the appellate court.