1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was determined as Grade I and was subject to a disposition of enlistment in active duty service as a result of a draft physical examination conducted on February 10, 2014.

As a result of the follow-up draft physical examination on March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff was determined as Grade 1 at the same physical grade as that of the previous one and was subject to a disposition to be enlisted for active duty service again.

On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff got married on December 9, 2015 and had one child (C) between his spouse.

On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for military service reduction or exemption with the Defendant on the grounds 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 September 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for military service reduction and 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 income, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, 16, and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is supported by the Plaintiff’s wife and children while living together with the Plaintiff’s wife and children after marriage. The Plaintiff’s parent and female are living differently from the Plaintiff’s mother, the Plaintiff’s father bears the obligation of KRW 00 million as a de facto marital relationship with another person from June 2015 after the Plaintiff’s mother divorced from the Plaintiff’s mother, and the Plaintiff’s mother is under medical treatment after the Plaintiff’s mother was diagnosed of a cell forest type in a state where there is no particular property. The Plaintiff’s female mother is not a circumstance to assist the Plaintiff’s wife and children’s livelihood because the Plaintiff’s wife and children are unable to maintain their livelihood when the Plaintiff serves military service. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes grounds under Article 62(1)1 of the Military Service Act.

Therefore, the instant case took place differently from this.