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 July 14, 1966, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on December 11, 1967 through February 8, 1969 on June 21, 1969.

B. The Plaintiff, during the Vietnam War, was exposed to defoliants, caused “urine disease” and applied for registration of patients suffering from defoliants, was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants by the Defendant, and was registered as a person of distinguished service to the State on a physical examination conducted around 2002.

C. On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) was exposed to defoliants during the Vietnam War, resulting in additional outbreak; and (b) filed an application for registration of patients suffering from defoliants.

On August 17, 2018, the Plaintiff was determined to fall short of the grading criteria as a result of each physical examination on “cathoology” on October 16, 2018 at the Gwangju Veterans Hospital, and on October 16, 2018.

E. On February 18, 2019, the Defendant issued a notice of the results of the comprehensive examination of actual aftereffects of defoliants (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) in accordance with the foregoing physical examination and the review and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, that both “Magpa and urology” were determined to fall short of the grading standards.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff visited the Korean War Veterans Branch Office to claim expenses for hospital, and sought statements from Defendant’s employees that it would be raised at the time of applying for registration, such as a patient suffering from defoliants, by receiving a diagnosis, etc. on “mathal infection,” and filed an application for registration of “mathal disease,” which is an additional application for registration, with respect to “mathal disease,” and thereafter, the Defendant conducted a physical examination on “mathal disease,” which is not applied for by the Plaintiff, and judged that it falls short of the pre-existing disability rating No. 7.