[1] Requirements for falling under Article 91-3 (2) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, which provides the criteria for extension service of technical research personnel, etc., when they serve in an enterprise that is not dispatched"

[2] The case holding that the technical research personnel cannot be seen as working for an enterprise which cannot be dispatched, even if they performed some duties other than those in the pertinent field at a place other than the designated entity at the time of transfer under the direction of the head of the designated entity and its management and supervision

[1] In order for technical research personnel to fall under "when they worked for an enterprise which is not a designated entity at the time of incorporation into "1. A" under Article 91-3 (2) [Attachment Table 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17442 of Dec. 31, 2001), which provides the criteria for extension service of technical research personnel, when they worked for another enterprise which is not a designated entity at the time of incorporation into "a.", the place of provision of labor is insufficient simply from the designated entity, and it is substantially short of the designated entity's management and supervision, and is dispatched under the management and supervision of other research institutes or enterprises which are not a designated entity, and therefore cannot be subject to approval or notification of personal change under Articles 39 (3) and 40 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6547 of Dec. 29, 201) and Article 87 (1) of the same Enforcement Decree.

[2] The case holding that although technical research personnel worked at the Seoul Office, which is not the local research institute located in the designated entity at the time of transfer according to the direction of the head of the designated entity, since they performed duties in the pertinent field at the time of transfer under the management and supervision of the designated entity, they cannot be deemed to fall under "when they worked for an enterprise that cannot be dispatched" because the place of provision of labor was outside the designated entity

[1] Articles 39(3) and 40 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 6547 of Dec. 29, 2001); Articles 87(1) and 91-3(2) [Attachment 3] 1. A / [2] Articles 39(3) and 40 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17442 of Dec. 31, 2001); Articles 87(1) and 91-3(2) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5583 decided Sep. 6, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2436) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1113 decided Sep. 27, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2597)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Lee Hong-sop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon and the Gyeonggi Military Manpower Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu2408 delivered on September 26, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In order to constitute “when a person works for an enterprise which is not a designated entity at the time of incorporation” under attached Table 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17442, Dec. 31, 2001; hereinafter the same shall apply), which stipulates the criteria for extension of service of expert research personnel, etc., when the place of the provision of service is insufficient simply for a person outside the designated entity. It is substantially short of the scope of the management and supervision of the designated entity, and is dispatched under the management and supervision of other research institutes or enterprises other than the designated entity (see Supreme Court Decision 39(3) and 40 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6547, Dec. 29, 200); Article 87(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act (limited to those which are not subject to approval or notification of personal change (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du1113, Sept. 27, 2002).

In the same purport, the court below held that the plaintiffs, who are expert research personnel, worked at the Seoul Office of ○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., which is not the central research institute located at the time of incorporation under the direction of the head of the designated entity, but at the time of incorporation under the management and supervision of the designated entity. Thus, even if the plaintiffs performed part of the duties other than the pertinent field, it is proper that the place of the provision of labor is nothing more than the designated entity and so it cannot be deemed that the above "when they worked for an enterprise that is not dispatched."

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)