The main claim in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's preliminary claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff was assigned to the preliminary military service on January 1, 2005 and was subject to a disposition of physical grade 1 on September 22, 2006 as a result of the physical examination for conscription, but was postponed by not later than 2015 on the grounds of application for entrance examination, college pathology, qualification examination, application for national announcement, application for examination for public institution employment examination, entrance to a graduate school, etc.

B. On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff was enlisted in active duty service, and was subject to measures for returning home on the 12th day of the same month, and was classified as those subject to three months of recovery period for reexamination on April 2, 2015, and was judged at Grade VII.

As a result of the follow-up physical examination conducted on July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of physical grade 1 on active duty service; thereafter, passed an application for air force recruitment and was enlisted in the army on September 21, 2015, but was returned from the draft physical conducted on September 25, 2015; on February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff was classified as the subject of a follow-up physical examination conducted on February 15, 2016.

C. As a result of a follow-up physical examination conducted on August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of enlistment in Grade I in active duty service. On August 23, 2016, the Central Physical Examination Center filed an objection on August 23, 2016, but the Central Physical Examination Center rendered a judgment of Grade III in physical grade against the Plaintiff on March 16, 2017 on the ground that it was a close examination and an autopsy examination conducted on September 27, 2016.

Although the Plaintiff filed an objection on March 23, 2017, the Central Physical Rating Review Committee rendered a second-class 3 decision on May 18, 2017, and accordingly, the Defendant rendered a disposition of military service to the Plaintiff subject to enlistment in active duty service on May 22, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “ active duty servicemen”) assignment of those subject to enlistment. (e)

On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant and the Republic of Korea seeking the revocation, etc. of a disposition of military service to be enlisted in active service (Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap58335, 86415). On July 19, 2018, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff.