30s Man Reenlists After Serving Military Alternative Service at Father's Company

Court Rules "Violation of Military Service Act"... Social Service Agent Call-up for Those Over 36 Years Old Considered

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A ruling has been made stating that performing alternative military service in a company where one's father is the de facto CEO constitutes a violation of the Military Service Act.

On the 28th, according to the legal community, the Administrative Division 3 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Seonggyu Park) dismissed a cancellation lawsuit filed by Mr. Yoo against the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Administration regarding the cancellation of his service completion status. The court stated, "Military service is a constitutional duty imposed on all citizens to protect the nation, and the specialized research personnel system is a special exception for alternative service," adding, "There is a significant public interest in strictly managing to prevent service from being performed for the private benefit of individuals or institution operators."

Mr. Yoo performed alternative service as a specialized research personnel from February 2013 to February 2016. During this period, from December 2014 until the end of his service, he worked at a military-designated company. However, two years after his discharge, in November 2018, Mr. Yoo received a notice from the Military Manpower Administration to "re-enlist for active duty." This was because a police investigation revealed that the company where Mr. Yoo completed his alternative service was effectively operated by his father. The Military Service Act stipulates that "persons who are within the fourth degree of kinship to the CEO of a military-designated company cannot be enrolled as specialized personnel."

However, since Mr. Yoo was over 36 years old, he was ordered to be summoned as a social service agent. Mr. Yoo objected to this. After filing a suspension of execution for the summons order, he filed a lawsuit against the Military Manpower Administration. In court, Mr. Yoo denied that his father was the de facto CEO of the company, arguing that since his father was not the registered CEO on the corporate registry, the Military Service Act violation could not apply.

However, the court judged that Mr. Yoo's father was indeed the de facto CEO of the company. Furthermore, it interpreted that the term "designated company CEO" as stipulated in the Military Service Act includes not only the CEO registered on the corporate registry but also the de facto CEO. The court explained, "Unlike public enterprises or public organizations, in private companies, it is common for the registered CEO on the corporate registry and the actual manager to be different persons," adding, "If the Military Service Act regulations cannot be applied simply because one is not the registered CEO, the purpose of the law could be rendered meaningless."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.