1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case being cited or added by the following parts, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. Each of the Sub-section 17 and No. 4 of the first instance judgment “Article 131(1)” shall be applied to “Article 131 subparag. 1” respectively.

B. On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, “A person who is obligated to support” in paragraph 9 of the first instance judgment shall add “at least three dependants per person who is obligated to support South and North Korea.”

C. On the 8th page of the judgment of the first instance, the “monthly revenue” in the 11st sentence is “property amount”; the “Article 15 subparag. 2” in the 20th class “Article 15 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the same 20 shall be used,” and the “the same conduct” (in the case of a father-child, 3:2(c) shall be deleted, and the “shall not meet the support expense requirements” in the 20th class 21th class “(in the case of a father-child, 3 or more dependants, 2 or more dependants shall meet the support expense requirements under the above provision, and 2 or more dependants shall be added.”

On January 29, 2014, the first instance judgment No. 9, 2014, "1. 29" in the 15th sentence, and "living and life" in the 10th sentence, shall be taken into consideration as "living" in the 10th sentence.

E. Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is assessed as follows.

In light of the property status and monthly income of the Plaintiff’s parent, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s parent has no economic ability to support the Plaintiff’s family.

Accordingly, the plaintiff argues that the parent's duty to support adult children is just a secondary duty, and that the plaintiff's parent's duty to support the plaintiff's family at the time of the plaintiff's military service, but the parent's duty to support adult children is also a secondary duty to support.