1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 2011, while being called as public interest service personnel and serving in Seongbuk-si B, the Plaintiff applied for divisional service for the purpose of treating diseases from June 22, 2011 to December 13, 201.

B. On December 14, 201, the day following the date on which the period of suspending the divisional service ends, the Plaintiff shall work at the workplace and report re-service at the workplace on December 14, 201; however, from December 14, 201 to December 23, 201, the Plaintiff left the workplace without permission; on December 26, 2011, the Sungnam City complained of the Plaintiff’s act of leaving the workplace without permission; on October 12, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for six months as a result of the violation of the Military Service Act.

(C) Sungnam Branch of the District Court 2012 Godan113.

On December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff was re-registered to the public health clinic in Sungnam-si, but was absent from service without permission from February 1, 2013 to July 7, 201, from February 1, 2013, from around December 12 to around 15 of the same month, and from around February 25, 2013, the Sungnam-si Mayor complained of the Plaintiff’s act of escaping without permission on February 25, 2013, and on July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for violating the Military Service Act.

(C) Sungnam Branch of the District Court 2014 Highest 2313. D.

The Sungnam-si Mayor shall be the plaintiff's status around July 2016.

Upon the termination of the sentence execution according to the judgment of the court below, around October 6, 2016, the notice of re-service was notified to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s re-service began from October 28, 2016.

On the other hand, on October 31, 2016, the Sungnam City filed an application with the Superintendent of the Special Self-Governing Military Manpower Office for revocation of the replacement of the Plaintiff’s active service, on the grounds that “the Plaintiff’s two-time service period is unlawful due to the continuous failure to serve as social work personnel or mental problems with his continuous employees during the service period.”

E. However, the regional military manpower office, however, did not communicate with the Plaintiff, and even with the family, the contact with the Plaintiff was interrupted, and the documents, etc. necessary to examine the first and second life record book were not submitted, and the application for revocation of the above regional military manpower office was not dealt with.

During that period, D, the father of the plaintiff, the Military Manpower Administration, shall be directed by the staff of the Military Manpower Administration on November 18, 2016.