1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a male who was born in 191, the Plaintiff had a disability where the movement scope of the sale on the left-hand side was narrower than normal, due to the symptoms of “congenital salutic pelkes” on the left-hand side from the time of birth.

B. As a result of the physical examination conducted by the Plaintiff on October 4, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that the internal and external exercise under the supervision of the left-hand sale was limited to not less than 0∑ 1 and less than 10∑ 4, and determined the Plaintiff’s physical grade on this ground. However, the Defendant suspended the disposition of military service and requested the Central Physical Examination Center to conduct a close inspection.

C. On October 26, 2016, the Central Physical Examination Center maintained the Plaintiff’s physical grade 4 determination as is, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the physical examination on October 27, 2016.

The Plaintiff raised an objection on November 3, 2016 as to the results of the foregoing physical examination. However, the Central Physical Examination Office rejected the Plaintiff’s objection and notified the Plaintiff of the determination of class 4 of the same physical grade as that existing on December 1, 2016.

Based on the above determination, on December 2, 2016, the Defendant rendered a military service disposition that the Plaintiff is subject to call-up to social work personnel service (hereinafter “instant military service disposition”).

E. On May 15, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff from June 22, 2016 to social work personnel (hereinafter “instant call-up disposition,” and “each of the instant dispositions” along with the instant disposition of military service.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Article 11(1) and attached Table 2 of the Inspection Regulations, such as the Plaintiff’s claim for draft physical examination, etc. (hereinafter “Examination Regulations”), are “a congenital congenital type” of “183.

One of the categories is physical grades when there is a high level of congenital aggregate, such as congenital aggregate aggregate, etc.