Alternative Service Worker Requests Commuting for Childcare... Court Says "Only Dormitory-Based Service Allowed"

Court: "No Exceptions to Dormitory-Based Principle"

Request for Commuting Denied... "Not Subject to Litigation"

An alternative service worker who requested to be allowed to work in a commuting form for childcare reasons filed an administrative lawsuit, but the court did not accept the claim.

Seoul Administrative Court. Yonhap News

According to the legal community on April 6, the 13th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court, presided over by Chief Judge Jin Hyunseop, recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by alternative service worker A against the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration and the Minister of Justice seeking the cancellation of the refusal to apply the full-time reservist system. Dismissal is a procedure in which a lawsuit or claim is terminated without consideration of the merits if it is deemed improper or does not meet the necessary requirements.

Mr. A, a Jehovah's Witness, was called up as an alternative service worker in March 2021 and had been serving in a dormitory-based system since October 2023. After having a child in September 2024, he requested in May of last year that the Military Manpower Administration and the Ministry of Justice allow him to serve in a commuting form.

However, both agencies replied that they could not accommodate his request, prompting Mr. A to file an administrative lawsuit, claiming that this measure discriminated against alternative service workers.

The court, however, reached a different conclusion. Citing Article 21 of the Alternative Service Act, the panel pointed out, "Alternative service workers are regulated to serve in a dormitory-based system, and there is no provision for exceptions to this rule."

The court further stated, "Dormitory-based service is a means to maintain fairness with active-duty soldiers and eliminate incentives for draft evasion," and added, "Forcing alternative service workers with children to reside in dormitories does not excessively infringe upon basic rights nor constitute a violation of the Constitution."

In particular, the panel found that the responses from the Military Manpower Administration and the Ministry of Justice did not constitute 'dispositions' subject to an administrative appeal. Simply notifying Mr. A of content not permitted by law does not itself constitute a subject of cancellation.

As a result, the court concluded that Mr. A's claim was not a legitimate subject for litigation and dismissed the lawsuit.

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