2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff was a male male in 1994, and was assigned to Grade I active service. On September 4, 2018, the Plaintiff received a follow-up draft physical examination from the Seoul regional military manpower office in Gwangju-nam regional military manpower office in accordance with Article 14-2 of the Military Service Act. On September 4, 2018, a doctor exclusively in charge of draft physical examination belonging to the above Military Manpower Administration determined the Plaintiff as Grade IV of physical grade on the ground that the Plaintiff falls under “the level of illness, mental disorder and assessment standard for mental disorder” under Article 98(c) of the Regulations on the Inspection, such as the draft physical examination, and the Defendant rendered a military service disposition for the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. Upon raising an objection to the above disposition, on September 10, 2018, the Defendant requested the Director General of the Central Physical Examination Center to conduct a close inspection with the Plaintiff, and on October 23, 2018, a doctor exclusively in charge of the draft physical examination belonging to the Central Physical Examination Center conducted a close inspection with the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff determined the Plaintiff as class 4 of the physical grade on the ground that the Plaintiff falls under “major depression disorder and other weather disorder-grade disability” in subparagraph 98 (c) of Article 98 of the “Level and Criteria for Assessment of Diseases and Mental Disorders” (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Based on this, on October 30, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of supplementary service (excluding those subject to the call-up for military service) subject to the call-up of a social work personnel service personnel service provider (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but on August 13, 2019, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3. Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is from around 2003 that the Plaintiff is receiving a long-term mental treatment on the grounds of depression, apprehensions, trouble in impulse adjustment, etc.