1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 14, 2008, the Defendant conducted a physical examination for conscription against the Plaintiff, and conducted a physical grade II determination, and conducted a disposition of a person subject to enlistment in active service, and conducted the examination and disposition related to military service against the Plaintiff as follows.

From November 2, 201 to August 12, 201, 201; applying for change of a military service disposition on August 31, 201: (i) the filing of an application for change of a military service disposition (non-netion, high class, high class, left-hand side, high class, left-hand side); (ii) the determination of physical grade 3; and (iii) the disposition of a person subject to enlistment in active duty service on November 1, 201 to December 30, 201; (iv) the filing of an application for change of a military service disposition on October 18, 2012; (v) the application for change of a military service disposition on April 25, 2011; (v) the filing of a request for a Central Physical Examination Office on April 25, 2013; and (v) the filing of a request for postponement of a military service disposition on June 3, 2013 to Grade 14.

B. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of a military service disposition with the Defendant on the ground of a certificate of high-ranking rank, and the Defendant, on July 10, 2014, upon the inspection conducted by the Central Physical Examination Center, rendered a judgment of Grade III of physical grade by deeming that the Plaintiff falls under “salutism and high-ranking salt” under Article 11(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on the Physical Examination, etc. of the Military Service (amended by Ministerial Ordinance No. 872, Oct. 19, 2015; hereinafter “former Rules on the Examination”) of Article 11(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on the Inspection, etc. of the Military Service (amended by Ministerial Ordinance No. 872, Oct. 19, 2015; hereinafter “former Rules on the Examination”).

(1) On August 26, 2014, the lower court notified the enlistment in active duty service (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”) on September 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant Disposition”).

(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 8 through 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s physical condition, such as the disease.