1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 13, 2009, the Defendant conducted a draft physical examination against the Plaintiff, and rendered a disposition of military service subject to enlistment in active duty service as a physical grade 1. The Plaintiff postponed the enlistment date on the grounds of teaching materials, incorporation into a university, graduate school study, application for a qualifying examination, etc. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to a draft physical reexamination at the former North Korean regional military manpower office, which submitted a written diagnosis for military service, stating “the limited organization disease (UCRD) with which he is missing, and the dystrophy dystrophy infection” on November 5, 2014, and was subject to a draft physical reexamination at physical grade 7 to submit a written diagnosis for military service with the confirmed names after the process of the internal examination

B. After that, the Plaintiff submitted a medical examination for the medical service use of the Plaintiff, stating “Gradical spine salt and (L), Ethropical sye salt,” and the Defendant conducted a follow-up physical examination on November 20, 2015, and requested the Central Physical Examination Center to conduct a follow-up physical examination on the same day. On December 11, 2015, the Central Physical Examination Center (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of National Defense No. 840, Dec. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Inspection Regulations”) [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] (hereinafter “instant Evaluation Criteria”) to determine the Plaintiff’s physical grade as Grade 4 (hereinafter “instant determination”). On December 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff as a social service personnel member (hereinafter “person subject to call-up”).

C. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said appeal on August 9, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.