logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.01.23 2013구합1998
병역감면거부처분등취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 7, 2005, the Plaintiff was determined at Physical Grade II as a result of the physical examination for conscription on July 7, 2005. However, on the grounds of entrance to a graduate school, application for the examination for a certified distribution manager, overseas business trip, workplace transfer, etc., the Plaintiff has postponed enlistment several times

On July 2009, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff will be enlisted in active duty service upon expiration of the extension period of the Plaintiff’s duty performance under the Military Service Act.

B. Accordingly, on July 14, 2009, the Plaintiff filed for the enlistment on July 16, 2009, complaining of mental illness, such as coercion disorder, which caused firearms to be stored in the draft physical for the physical examination, and accordingly, returned to the Plaintiff after being judged as physical grade 7 (Physical Re-examination) and was in need of observation for three months.

C. After the reexamination on October 16, 2009, the Plaintiff was judged as Grade 7 on the ground that “from August 2009 to ASEAN hospitals need to observe during the next seven months due to an outpatient disorder.” On May 17, 2010, the Plaintiff was judged as Grade 3 ( Active Duty Service) on the ground that “after the follow-up physical examination, during the pertinent period, it maintains symptoms of medicine treatment or surrounding medicine.” The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he will be enlisted in active duty service on June 8, 2010, and re-entered on June 10, 2010, the Plaintiff was deemed to have been subject to Grade 7 on the ground that dental diseases, such as dental surgery, etc., were treated for a period of three months from the date of the reexamination on June 10, 2010, and the Plaintiff was determined as necessary for treatment at Grade 2, 3, 2010 after the reexamination on the ground that treatment was completed at Grade 2, 3,010 on the ground that treatment was not completed.

arrow