The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; (b) evidence Nos. 2, 3, 1, and 3; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

As a result of the draft physical examination on September 1, 2008, the Plaintiff (B) received physical grade 3 and a disposition of military service to be subject to active duty service; on November 15, 2013, following the follow-up draft physical examination on November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff (B) received a physical grade 1 and a disposition of military service to be subject to active duty service; on February 2015, the Plaintiff acquired a doctor qualification and was enrolled on the military register of military officer candidates on March 2015.

B. On September 17, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for a change in the military service disposition to the Defendant on the ground of a defect in eyesight (as a result, the Plaintiff submitted a medical certificate for military affairs, medical examination and examination records, etc. under the name of the director of C Hospital, which is the maximum correction eyesight 0.1 in the unit as a medical doctor.

C. On October 15, 2019, the Defendant requested a central physical examination office to conduct a close physical examination, and the central physical examination office reviewed the Plaintiff’s medical examination and examination records submitted by the Plaintiff on October 15, 2019, and determined the Plaintiff’s physical grade as class 4 by deeming that the Plaintiff’s maximum corrective visual power in the Plaintiff’s account constitutes 0.2, and falls under [Attachment Table 3] subparag. 285 (a) of the Rules on Examination for Physical Examination for Mental and Physical Disability (hereinafter “the instant evaluation criteria”).

On October 15, 2019, according to the result of the above physical grade determination, the Defendant rendered a disposition of military service to the Plaintiff as a person subject to active duty service (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant disposition is unlawful as it is based on an illegal physical grade determination on the following grounds.

(A) Article 285 of the instant assessment criteria provides that “The data related to pharmaceutical affairs refers to the records up to 16 years prior to the age of 16,” but the purport of this provision is that the data ought to have been diagnosed as a dead time prior to the age of 16.