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

A. On June 29, 2007, the Plaintiff became subject to enlistment in the active service class 2 as a result of the draft physical examination, and the Plaintiff thereafter changed the physical class 3 of the Plaintiff to the physical class 3 subject to enlistment in the active service according to the results of the physical examination on April 29, 2009 and the result of the follow-up draft physical examination on November 23, 2012.

From June 29, 2007 to December 31, 2012, the enlistment in active duty service under Article 60 of the Military Service Act was postponed due to the reason that he is attending a university, and the enlistment in active duty service was postponed on eight occasions in total from September 9, 2013 to November 26, 2017 on the grounds that he applied for an examination thereafter, etc. < Amended by Act No. 11888, Sep. 9, 2013>

The number of days of postponement of the date of filing the grounds for postponement (day) 1.2. 7. 7: (i) the aggregate of the 1. 2. 2. 1 to 3. 9. 2, 2013 to 11. 3, 2013 to 23; (ii) the 6. 7. 7. 1 to 7. 3, 2015 to 20; (iii) the 2. 7. 7. 1 to 7. 3, 2015 to 20; (iv) the 1. 7. 5 to 7. 3, 2015 to 1. 7. 3, 2015 to 1. 7. 7. 324; and (v) the 6. 1 to 2016. 16. 36. 205 to 25. 2016

B. On December 18, 2017, as the period of postponement expires, the Defendant issued a notice of enlistment in active duty service (hereinafter “disposition of enlistment”) to the Plaintiff by January 29, 2018, to the Army Training Center. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for postponement of enlistment with the Defendant on the grounds of disease. The Defendant rejected the said application on the grounds that the Defendant used the two-year period of postponement, which is the total postponement period stipulated in the Military Service Act and subordinate statutes (hereinafter “decision of refusal of enlistment”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 1, and arguments.