생계곤란병역감면거부처분취소등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff was determined as Grade III as a result of a draft physical examination, and was subject to a disposition of enlistment in active duty service.
The plaintiff had one child (D) without filing a marriage report with C.
As a result of the follow-up draft physical examination on November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was determined as Grade 3 at the same physical grade as before and was subject to the disposition of the next person to be enlisted for active duty service, and the enlistment was postponed due to the reasons for bringing up children.
On January 18, 2016, the plaintiff applied for the selection of those to be called to full-time reserve service and was selected as those to be called to full-time reserve service.
On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for military service reduction or exemption with the Defendant on the ground of difficulty in maintaining his livelihood, alleging that such application constitutes “a person who is neither the principal nor his family’s livelihood” under Article 62(1)1 of the Military Service Act.
On August 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for military service reduction or exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff does not fall under Article 62(1)1 of the Military Service Act in light of the Plaintiff’s family’s family property
(hereinafter “instant refusal disposition.” On September 27, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on October 30, 2017 that he would be enlisted as the 17th Team of the Army on the enlistment of the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant enlistment disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap’s 1, 9, Eul’s 1, 9, and 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion has supported his mother and child while living together. The plaintiff's father has been living differently with the plaintiff's mother after divorced from the plaintiff's mother. Thus, the plaintiff's father cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's family's father's family and can not include the amount of the plaintiff's father's property in the amount of the plaintiff's family's property. Even if the plaintiff does not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of military service due to a difficulty in maintaining