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 September 13, 2005, the Plaintiff was assigned to be enlisted in active service, subject to a judgment of physical grade II (a judgment of physical grade I higher than that of the draft department) in physical examination for the first disciplinary person, and was assigned to be enlisted in active service.

B. On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for change of a military service disposition, and on March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was judged as a physical grade Grade III due to at least a digging step (the difference between the digging step of horizontal horizontal width is at least 3.00D and below 5.00D) and filed an objection with the Defendant on March 11, 2015.

C. On April 7, 2015, a draft physical examination doctor of the central physical examination center who was requested by the Defendant for a close physical examination, again rendered a judgment of physical grade 3 against the Plaintiff on the ground that the excavation rate is higher than that of the Plaintiff (the difference between the horizontal excavation rate of 3.00 and 5.00D). On April 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of enlistment in active service to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2, 7 evidence, Eul's 1 to 3 and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The examination rules [Attachment 2] 285 subparag. 2 of the Military Service Rule (hereinafter “instant provision”) on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion related to the summary of the instant disposition, which requires the records from the first examination date to three years before the date of the first examination date, discriminates against the Plaintiff who was unable to obtain data after the period of document preservation compared with the inspectors who prepared medical records, etc. for neglect of military service, and thus, violates the principle of equality under the Constitution, and provide a discretionary decision on the disposition of physical grade determination, which is a binding act, as such, to provide a discretionary decision.

Furthermore, from the beginning of the beginning of the year, the Plaintiff was not in good condition.

According to objective opinions of doctors, such as a medical certificate for the use of illness (Evidence A No. 3) of January 14, 2015, the maximum visual proof of one eye shall not exceed 0.6, and the examination rules, such as physical examination for conscription, are physical grade 4 and the corresponding determination shall be based on the Plaintiff pursuant to attached Table 285.