1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the notice of call for education to social work personnel on October 5, 2015 shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 14, 2006 and October 25, 2007, the plaintiff was judged as physical grade 4 as a result of each draft physical examination, and was assigned to a public duty personnel call service.

B. Since January 28, 2008 to November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) was scheduled to enter a graduate school from May 20, 201 to May 31, 201; and (b) was postponed as the grounds for raising children from August 4, 201 to July 21, 201; and (c) submitted to the Defendant a reduction or exemption of military service income due to difficulties in livelihood on October 13, 2014 on the grounds that Article 62(1)1 of the Military Service Act exists.

C. Accordingly, on December 23, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption of military service on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant first disposition”), and indicated on the relevant grounds the rules on the reduction and exemption of military service for the persons who have difficulty in maintaining their livelihood under Article 62 of the Military Service Act, Articles 130 through 132 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act, and Article 1151 of the Directive of the Military Manpower Administration.

Grounds for rejection: excessive amount of parent's property (301,679,853 of the amount of property) - It is judged that parent's property can help the livelihood of the obligor because of a large amount of parent's property.

On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on February 5, 2015, but was dismissed on August 21, 2015.

E. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of call-up for social work personnel service (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”) to the Plaintiff on November 14, 2015, which took place on November 14, 2015 as the date of call-up.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the second disposition is lawful.

A. Since the Defendant’s prior defense prior to the merits loses its effect of the instant disposition No. 2 by delaying ex officio the registration of the Plaintiff, the part seeking revocation of the instant disposition No. 2 among the instant lawsuits is unlawful.

(b) If a determination 1 administrative disposition is revoked, that disposition will no longer become effective.