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

A. On January 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was assigned to the preliminary military service and became eligible for military service. On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff was assigned to the secondary military service examination on the physical grade 3, and on November 21, 2012 at the secondary military service examination, but was assigned to the military service for physical grade 2 from April 16, 2007 to April 24, 2007; on November 29 to 24, 2007; on January 29 to 24, 2009; on January 4, 2010 to November 15, 201; on March 11, 2012 to April 11, 2012; on the grounds that the Plaintiff was enrolled in the examination at a university and a graduate school and on the grounds that he was enrolled on May 16, 2016 to June 16, 2017.

B. On August 22, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a reduction or exemption of military service due to difficulties in maintaining livelihood, and the Defendant, after ex officio extension of the date of enlistment of the Plaintiff, refused the said application on December 28, 2018 on the ground that the amount of the Plaintiff’s family’s property and monthly income exceeds the reduction or exemption standard of military service (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 6 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to Article 13(1)9 of the Regulations on the Settlement of Reduction and Exemption of Military Service for Persons of Difficulty in Maintenance of Livelihood (hereinafter “Rules on Reduction and Exemption of Military Service”), where the parents live and live in a different household due to their marriage, it constitutes a family member who does not share livelihood. Therefore, in determining whether the criteria for reduction and exemption of military service are met, the father of the Plaintiff should be excluded

B. Even if the father’s father’s family is included in the Plaintiff’s family and the Plaintiff’s standards for reduction and exemption of military service are not satisfied, the Defendant may grant reduction and exemption of military service to a person who is deemed unable to actually maintain his livelihood even if he does not meet the standards for reduction and exemption of military service. Therefore, the instant disposition was abused and abused discretion.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Whether the disposition is legitimate.