Suits by Resigned Residents Challenging 'Enlistment Standby' Dismissed; They Must Await Their Turn for Military or Public Health Doctor Service

[Financial News] Residents who submitted resignations in protest of the medical school expansion policy filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel their "enlistment standby" designation, but the court dismissed the case. The court determined that the Ministry of National Defense’s notification of the classification results to the Military Manpower Administration was merely an internal act between administrative agencies and was therefore not subject to an action for cancellation. The resigned residents argue that it is unfair for their ability to resume training, find employment, or open medical practices to be restricted while they remain on "enlistment standby" until they are called up as military doctors or public health doctors in the alternative service.
According to legal sources on the 6th, the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 1, presided over by Chief Judge Yang Sang-yoon, recently dismissed all claims in a lawsuit filed by six plaintiffs, including medical officer candidate A, against the Minister of National Defense. The plaintiffs sought to cancel their classification as persons not selected for active-duty service.
A dismissal on procedural grounds is a decision that concludes a case without ruling on its merits when a lawsuit or claim is procedurally improper or fails to meet the required conditions.
In February 2024, residents at training hospitals resigned in protest of the government’s push to expand medical school admissions. After the Ministry of Health and Welfare withdrew its order prohibiting the acceptance of resignations, the resignations were processed, and approximately 3,300 residents who had not yet completed their military service were reportedly placed into the pool of people subject to enlistment at once. This was about three times the number that the military and public health care system can absorb annually.
As a large number of candidates for military doctor and public health doctor service emerged within a short period, they were placed on "enlistment standby." The Ministry of National Defense established a policy of selecting them over a four-year period. For the resigned residents, this meant that their professional freedom would be restricted to some extent for several years without knowing when they would be enlisted. A and the other plaintiffs therefore filed suit, seeking to cancel the classification.
The court found that the Ministry of National Defense’s notification classifying the plaintiffs as not selected for active-duty service did not constitute an administrative disposition that directly altered their rights or obligations.
The court stated, "The classification notification in this case consists of the defendant classifying, as active-duty selectees or persons not selected for active-duty service, the candidates for active-duty officer positions in the mandatory-service fields for the relevant year who were notified by the Commissioner of the Military Manpower Administration, and then notifying the Commissioner of the classification results. It is merely an internal act between administrative agencies."
It added, "It cannot be considered to directly alter the plaintiffs’ rights or obligations or to interfere with the exercise of any rights."
The court emphasized, "There is no statutory or legally recognized right for the plaintiffs to immediately demand that the Ministry of National Defense select them as active-duty officers in the mandatory-service fields for the relevant year without considering the number of personnel required by the military."
Because the lawsuit was dismissed on procedural grounds, the court did not rule on the merits, including whether the Ministry of National Defense’s revision of its directive was lawful or whether the criteria used to classify the plaintiffs as not selected for active-duty service were valid.
[email protected] Chang-hoon Lee Reporter