1. On June 2, 2017, among the instant lawsuit, the Defendant sought revocation of the enlistment disposition for full time reserve personnel against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 6, 2009, the Plaintiff was determined as a physical grade 3 as a result of the draft physical examination, and became a person subject to enlistment in active duty service. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff was selected as a person subject to call-up for full-time reserve service on the grounds of child support.

B. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for military service reduction or exemption with the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to maintain his livelihood, but the Defendant rejected the said application on January 14, 2015.

C. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant on September 12, 2016 that he should be enlisted as full time reserve personnel after being judged at Grade II as a result of the follow-up draft physical examination.

On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a new application for military service reduction or exemption with the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to maintain a livelihood, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for military service reduction or exemption on February 16, 2017 on the ground that “if the principal family’s property amount and monthly income amount are included, it exceeds the monthly income amount equivalent to the reduction or exemption of military service.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). E.

On May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for revocation of the instant disposition, but the petition was dismissed on August 22, 2017.

바. 한편 피고는 2017. 6. 2. 병역법 시행령 제21조 제1항, 제35조, 제121조 제3항에 따라 원고에 대하여 상근예비역으로 입영할 것을 통지(입영부대: 36사단, 입영일시: 2017. 7. 25. 14:00)하였다

(hereinafter referred to as “instant enlistment notice”. 【No dispute exists concerning the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 13, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the enlistment notice in the instant case is legitimate (pre-trial defense on the merits)

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had postponed the Plaintiff’s enlistment date on July 26, 2017 from July 25, 2017 to December 31, 2017, and thus, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant enlistment notice.

Therefore, among the lawsuits of this case, this case.