The requirements of the two readers under Article 21 (1) of the former Military Service Act

Article 21 (1) of the former Military Service Act provides that where a person who was enlisted in active duty service becomes two or more readers after the enlistment, the active duty service period may be shortened.

Article 21 of the Military Service Act

Plaintiff

The Seoul Military Manpower Administration

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the disposition that the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for reduction of active duty period on May 13, 1969.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

On September 20, 1968, the Plaintiff entered the army in the 30th Order of enlistment in the Military Service under the Military Service Act, and received prescribed education, and currently served in the 363 unit in the Army as one of the first Army (military forces No. 6102). On May 5, 1969, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of the period of active duty service under Article 21(1)4 of the Military Service Act with the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes the second class of the Military Service Act under Article 21(1)4-2 of the same Act. As stated in the Defendant’s claim, the fact that the Plaintiff issued a disposition to return the said application to the Defendant on May 13, 1969 is not a dispute between the parties, and that the Plaintiff was a second class of the Plaintiff before the enlistment in the active duty service.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case that the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for reduction of the active duty service period of this case, which corresponds to not less than two readers, under Article 21 (1) 4 of the Military Service Act, is unlawful, and the defendant does not have any grounds to recognize the plaintiff as the two readers, as well as the application for reduction of the active duty service period under Article 21 (1) of the Military Service Act requires the reasons that occurred after the enlistment in active duty service. Thus, the rejection of this case is legitimate.

In light of the provisions of Article 44 of the Military Service Act and Article 172 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a person who was enlisted in active duty service falls under any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) of the same Article, such as two or more readers, etc. after the enlistment, he may reduce the period of the leather to 6 months. In light of the provisions of Article 44 of the same Act and Article 172 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is not possible to reduce the period of the active duty service falling under the reasons such as two or more readers, etc. prior to the enlistment in active duty service.

Therefore, in this case where the plaintiff is one of the two readers from before he was enlisted in active duty service, the plaintiff cannot be subject to a reduction of the active duty service period under Article 21 (1) of the Military Service Act even if he is the two readers. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case that rejected the plaintiff's application for reduction of the period of the leather service in accordance with the above provision of the Act is legitimate.

Therefore, without examining whether or not the plaintiff is two readers, the plaintiff's claim for objection is groundless, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jung-so (Presiding Judge)