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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) adding Gap evidence Nos. 59 and Eul evidence Nos. 20 to the column for recognition of No. 14 of the first instance judgment; and (b) adding the following judgments to the plaintiff’s additional statement at the court of the first instance; and (c) therefore, it is identical to the reasoning for the first instance judgment, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

A. Summary of the argument

In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff, as a skilled industrial personnel, has faithfully performed the assigned duties without being given an opportunity to develop himself for about 34 months; and (b) the Defendant received training from the Defendant for about 2 years after being subject to the disposition of expiration of the instant service; (c) the Defendant issued the disposition of cancellation of the instant service and the disposition of cancellation of transfer to active duty service on the ground of the Plaintiff’s unfair transfer of skilled industrial personnel and the absence of duties in the field of designated enterprises; and (d) the instant disposition of enlistment in active duty service cannot be recognized; and (e) the Plaintiff faithfully served as skilled industrial personnel for the period of service; and (e) the Plaintiff has no choice but to suspend the business, etc. which the Plaintiff promoted while promoting a normal social life by trusting the completion of the service of skilled industrial personnel from the Defendant, rather than for the public interest needs to take each of the instant dispositions, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vested rights and disadvantages, etc., which may be suffered due to each of the instant dispositions, are unlawful in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition.

B. Determination

As seen above, the plaintiff can recognize the reasons for the disposition of this case that he did not perform his duties in the field of the designated entity from June 23, 2004 to the expiration of his service. In response to the investigation of the service condition of public officials belonging to the Seoul regional military manpower office with hiding the fact that the plaintiff actually did not perform his duties, the defendant, who is a skilled industrial personnel, did not recognize that he did not perform his duties in the field of the designated entity at the time of transfer to the above period. The duty of military service, as a constitutional duty imposed on all citizens for national protection, is a duty under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea to maintain strict sense of fairness and fairness, as well as public interest needs to prevent evasion. Since Article 41 (1) 2, (3), and Article 40 subparagraph 2 of the Military Service Act do not require the cancellation of the disposition of excessive disposition of enlistment in active duty service, the defendant's disposition of excessive disposition of enlistment in active duty service cannot be seen as having violated the principle of prohibition of enlistment in active duty service and its grounds.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)