1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was born as a child between the father of Japanese nationality B and the mother-friendly C of Korean nationality, and acquired the Japanese nationality.

B. On October 200, C reported the acquisition of nationality of the Republic of Korea to the Minister of Justice as a legal representative of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 7 (1) 1 of the Addenda to the Nationality Act (Act No. 5431, Dec. 13, 1997; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Special Cases concerning the acquisition of nationality to a mother-born by adoption of the father-shaped-type system of blood transfusion). The Plaintiff thereby acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea on October 9, 200.

C. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was determined to be eligible for a call-up to social work personnel service on and before the date of call-up six times until September 10, 2017.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff applied for the change of military service disposition to the wartime labor service on the ground that he is unable to cope with military service due to disease on May 2017. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiff was determined as a person eligible for the call-up to social work personnel service.

On July 6, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of transfer to the wartime labor service pursuant to Article 65(1)3 of the Military Service Act (hereinafter “instant previous disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who acquires nationality by naturalization under the Nationality Act.”

E. After that, on April 29, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the previous disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is a person who acquires nationality under Article 7 of the Addenda to the Nationality Act, and is not a person who acquires nationality through naturalization under the Nationality Act, and is not subject to enlistment in the wartime labor service” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1. Article 65 (1) 3 of the Military Service Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.