1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s application for enlistment in the second citizen service against the Plaintiff on November 13, 2015.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Around 2007, the Plaintiff entered the second year of the secondary education course of the instant school located in Singapore, but failed to pass the final examination for the third year, and due to age limitation, re-enters the fourth year course of the general course of the secondary education (five-year system) but did not complete the said fourth year course. Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who failed to graduate from a middle school on the basis of the Republic of Korea since it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff completed the curriculum for at least nine years or completed the curriculum corresponding to a middle school, and thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful. 2) The Defendant’s public official in charge of the Defendant’s side recognized the Plaintiff’s academic background as a middle school during the e-mail on January 28, 2015 and May 10, 2015, without confirming that the Plaintiff was not a school in China, against the principle of trust in the Republic of Korea.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in Appendix 1.

C. Determination 1) According to Article 14(1) of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 13778, Jan. 19, 2016), the director of a regional military manpower office may assign a person, among those who have undergone a draft physical examination, whose physical grade falls under any of Grades I through IV, based on his academic background, age, etc., to be enlisted in active service, supplementary service, or the second citizen service. According to Article 65(1)2, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to serve in active service due to reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the type of active service.