A. On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the director of the regional military manpower office in Korea for the selection of a person eligible to call full time reserve service on the grounds of supporting his children, and the director of the regional military manpower office in Korea appointed the Plaintiff as a person eligible to call full time reserve service and notified the Plaintiff that he will enlist in the full time reserve service (on June 2, 2015, the date

B. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an application for the change of the date of performing military service on the ground of raising his child, and the director of the regional military manpower office having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea postponed the date of enlistment in the full-time reserve service for the Plaintiff from June 2, 2015 to November 15, 2015 (167 days). After the expiration of the said period, the Plaintiff again issued a notice of enlistment in the full-time reserve service to the Plaintiff (the date of enlistment, August 2, 2016).

C. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received the notice of enlistment, and around July 28, 2016, pursuant to Article 62(1)1 and (3) of the Military Service Act (hereinafter “Act”) and Article 132(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction and exemption from military service in distress to maintain livelihood with the director of the regional military manpower office in the Republic of Korea, but the director of the regional military manpower office in the Defendant Gyeong-nam regional military manpower office rejected the said application.

On October 16, 2016, the director of the regional military manpower office in Korea, notified the Plaintiff that he will be enlisted again for the next full time reserve (on December 13, 2016, the date of enlistment), the Plaintiff filed an application for military service exemption or reduction (hereinafter “instant application”) on December 7, 2016, and the director of the regional military manpower office in Korea, upon deliberation by the deliberative committee on the difficulty in livelihood, issued a disposition rejecting the instant application (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”) on the ground that “if the Plaintiff’s father is included in his family members, the amount of property and the amount of income exceeds the standard for the reduction or exemption of military service that is difficult to maintain livelihood” (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

E. On May 2, 2017, the director general of the regional military manpower office of the defendant Gyeong-nam, who wishes to serve full time reserve service in his/her jurisdiction, shall be the plaintiff on May 2, 2017.