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

A. On July 21, 2010, the year when he reached the age of 19, the Plaintiff, who was born, was subject to a disposition of enlistment in active duty service after being judged at physical Grade III as a result of a physical examination for conscription.

B. The Plaintiff postponed enlistment by November 13, 2012 on the ground that he was enrolled in a university, and was notified by the Defendant of enlistment in active duty service on June 18, 2013 (the date of enlistment: August 6, 2013), and the same year.

7. 23. The applicant submitted an application for change or exemption from military service pursuant to Article 62(1)1 of the Military Service Act on the ground of the difficulty in maintaining livelihood.

C. From August 6, 2013 to October 25, 2013, the Defendant postponed the date of enlistment in the active duty service with the Plaintiff and examined whether to reduce or exempt military service. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to reject the Plaintiff’s military service reduction or exemption (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff satisfies the criteria for support costs and monthly revenue among the grounds for the reduction or exemption of military service that is difficult to maintain livelihood, but the amount of property owned by his family exceeds the criteria. However, on December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 3, 2014.

E. On May 2, 2014, the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the enlistment in active duty service (the date of enlistment: June 24, 2014), and the Plaintiff applied for a qualifying examination and delayed the date of enlistment by July 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is supporting and living alone. The Plaintiff’s mother is a comprehensive disability Grade 1, 2, 2, and 2, etc. with kidney disorder. The Plaintiff’s mother is not able to use kidney, and 3 days must undergo kidne blood medication at hospital.

Although the Plaintiff’s mother owned the second floor house and partially leased it, the publicly notified price of the building is merely KRW 99,700,000, and it is substantially property as an old building.