Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan regional office of manpower administration

November 26, 2008

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of public duty personnel call against the plaintiff on July 22, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 19, 198, the Plaintiff was subject to physical grade 1 in a physical examination for conscription, but was subject to a disposition of being called for public service due to an academic background of retirement from high school, and was postponed from 2001 to 2007 due to domestic adjustment, enlistment in industrial technical personnel, atmosphere, disease, qualifying examination, application for reduction of or exemption from military service, etc.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff submitted to the director of the Seoul regional military manpower office for four times from 2002 to 2006 the reduction or exemption of military service under Article 132 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act on the grounds of the difficulty in maintaining livelihood of his family members under Article 62(1)1 of the Military Service Act, but all rejected or returned, and did not raise any objection, such as filing an administrative appeal or administrative litigation against the rejection or return disposition.

본문내 포함된 표 출원일 처분내용 처분이유 2002. 4. 10. 부결 원고의 모 소외 1의 토지 및 건물 2,900만 원 상당 확인되어 재산액 초과 2002. 10. 28. 부결 원고의 부 소외 2가 사찰(○○암)을 소유하고 있으며 원고 부모 통장에 입금되는 시줏돈이 과다한 점 등 분가전 본가의 재산이 많음 2004. 6. 7. 회송 서류 제출 보완할 것을 3회 요구하였으나 불응 2005. 12. 26. 부결 본가의 부 통장으로 매월 평균 566만 원 상당의 시줏돈이 지속적으로 입금되는 등 도움을 줄 만한 상황

C. On March 18, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted again to the Defendant with the same reasons. However, the Defendant issued a disposition of notifying the Plaintiff to call to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2008 at least 53 copies of the same civil petition under Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, on March 24, 2008, on the ground that the above submission of the reduction or exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption from military service on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disease (e.g., e., knee-vise-vis) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On July 29, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on July 30, 2008, and on July 30, 2008, the Defendant decided to accept and examine the Plaintiff’s reduction and exemption from military service again on the ground that the aforementioned disposition was erroneous, and on August 8, 2008, August 8, 2008, and August 11, 2008, notified the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife of the said details by telephone, and urged the Plaintiff to submit the reduction and exemption from military service and related documents. However, the Plaintiff did not submit this by the closing date of the pleadings.

E. On the other hand, on August 13, 2008, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the court suspended the validity of the instant disposition until the pronouncement of the instant judgment (No. 2008 A. 326), and on August 18, 2008, the public service call date for the Plaintiff was postponed.

[Ground of recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff not only meets the requirements for reduction and exemption of military service for reasons of difficulty in livelihood, which are required by the related laws such as the Military Service Act, but also asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is much more unfavorable for the plaintiff and the plaintiff's family members due to the performance of military service than for the public interest needs such as the duty of national defense.

B. Determination

Article 14 of the Military Service Act provides that the director of a regional military manpower office shall provisionally determine the type of military service to be enlisted in active service, supplemental service, the second citizen service, exemption from military service, or follow-up physical examination for persons who have undergone the draft physical, according to their physical grade, and Article 61 of the same Act provides that persons who have received or are to receive a notice of conscription, etc., and who have difficulty in performing it on the date of performing their duties due to illness, mental or physical disorder, disaster, etc., may postpone the date of enlistment by application: Provided, That where it is difficult to submit an application for postponement of the date of enlistment due to reasons prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as disaster, etc., the director of a regional military manpower office may postpone the date of enlistment ex officio, and where the date of performing their duties is postponed, a notice of enlistment, etc. shall be given again after setting the date of enlistment. According to each of the above provisions, a disposition for enlistment, etc. in supplemental service, which imposes a new kind of military service to those who are subject to the draft physical service.

In this case, the disposition of this case is invalidated as the date of public duty personnel service personnel call for the plaintiff has been postponed as seen earlier. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is subject to the disposition already invalidated (where the plaintiff submitted to the defendant for the reduction and exemption of military service and submitted it to the defendant for the examination of the defendant, and the defendant's decision of rejection is based on the same reasons as alleged in this case, it is not allowed to dispute the disposition of this case itself on the ground of the above circumstances, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful in this case).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)