Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act that provides for a person who has obtained a permanent resident status in a foreign country to be exempted from military service and a disposition of exemption from military service by the director of the regional military manpower office, and Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Service Act

The purpose of Article 24(2) of the Military Service Act is to exempt a person who has obtained permanent residence in a foreign country from military service as a matter of course, and the provision of exemption from military service of the director of a regional military manpower office at the permanent domicile pursuant to Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act and Article 53

Article 44 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 73Gu40,41 delivered on November 21, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 24 (2) of the Military Service Act provides that the non-party who obtained permanent residency from the Government of the United States of America on May 12, 1971 shall be exempted from military service as a matter of course, after recognizing the fact that the non-party obtained permanent residency status from the Government of the United States of America. The provision on exemption from military service from military service under Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Act and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall not be deemed as merely providing a simple follow-up reorganization procedure for those exempted from military service under Article 24 (2) of the Military Service Act. Thus, the non-party who obtained permanent residency status under Article 24 (2) of the same Act is not entitled to exemption from military service as a matter of course on the premise that the non-party who obtained permanent residency status from the Government of the United States of America on January 5, 1972, who was subject to the disposition of a fine for negligence under Article 24 (2) of the same Act, was not subject to exemption from military service in violation of Article 17 of the same Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)