The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is not sufficient to find the facts of the court of first instance and determine even if the evidence additionally submitted in this court

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"A confirmation shall be made" of the fourth 15 line in the judgment of the first instance, but "A shall add "each description, etc. of evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10" to the following:

Following the fourth 20 lines of the judgment of the first instance, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged according to the statement of evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 1 of the first instance court, the result of the entrustment of the appraisal of medical records to the chief of the C Association of the first instance court, and the inquiry reply by the C Association Medical Appraisal Board of the C Association to this court.”

The 5th line of the judgment of the first instance court "the result of the entrustment of the appraisal of medical records to the chief of this court's C Association" shall be "the result of the entrustment of the appraisal of medical records to the chief of C Association of the first instance court and the fact-finding inquiry by the C Association Medical Appraisal Director of this court".

The following shall be added to the five-way line in the judgment of the first instance:

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the causal relationship between the king and the injury or disease in the military service of the plaintiff was severed because it was true that there was a king, such as the performance of the service, or even though it was judged to completely recover from the first time of the military service, the Vietnam War revered to the first time of the service.

According to the facts acknowledged earlier and Gap evidence No. 4, while in military service, the plaintiff was hospitalized in a Vietnam hospital on May 21, 1971 due to heavy salt, etc., but discharged on December 8, 1971, and thereafter was dispatched to the Vietnam War on March 13, 1972. However, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff was suffering from chronic hepatitis as seen earlier.