1. On October 23, 2017, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the enlistment notification in active duty service as of October 23, 2017 among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

As a result of the draft physical examination on November 19, 2010, the Plaintiff became a person subject to enlistment in active duty service after being judged a physical grade 2 as a result of the draft physical examination.

In 2011, the Plaintiff postponed enlistment on the ground that the Plaintiff prepared a new college entrance time after retirement from the university that was enrolled in the year 2012. From February 2013, the Plaintiff postponed enlistment on the ground that he was enrolled in the university, but graduated from the university on or around February 25, 2017, and applied for reduction and exemption from military service on May 25, 2017 to the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to maintain his livelihood.

(hereinafter “instant application”). On September 22, 2017, the deliberative committee on difficult livelihood (hereinafter “Deliberative Committee”) deliberated on the Plaintiff’s father’s property amount and revenue amount calculated by including the Plaintiff’s father’s family to the effect that it is extremely difficult for the Plaintiff to make a disposition of reduction and exemption from military service, and decided not to grant the Plaintiff a disposition of reduction and exemption from military service. On the same day, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the property amount and revenue amount exceeded the standard of reduction and exemption from military service, thereby refusing the instant application.

(hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”). On October 23, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of enlistment in active duty service (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”). On November 27, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of enlistment in the Army Training Center on November 27, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant enlistment disposition.” 【The ground for recognition” is without dispute, and the part seeking revocation of the instant enlistment disposition among the instant lawsuits is lawful, and the Defendant’s main defense of safety postponement of the date of enlistment against the Plaintiff, and the part seeking revocation of the instant enlistment disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit, as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

Judgment

Even if the defendant gives notice to the enlistment by designating the time and place of enlistment, the person subject to the enlistment shall not exceed the Military Service Act.