1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was assigned to the preliminary military service and became a person subject to military service, and was assigned to the military service as a person subject to the enlistment in Grade II and II on October 14, 2007.

After January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff was assigned to military service as a person subject to enlistment in the third class active duty service through a follow-up draft physical examination.

B. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the enlistment in active duty service on December 4, 2012, but the Plaintiff postponed the date of enlistment for 365 days from December 4, 2012 to December 3, 2013 on the ground of raising a child on November 26, 2012.

After the period of postponement expires, the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the enlistment in active duty service on July 8, 2014, but the Plaintiff postponed the date of enlistment for 365 days from July 8, 2014 to July 7, 2015 on the same ground as that of June 27, 2014.

(8) 80 days in total. (3)

After the expiration of the extension period, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the enlistment in active duty service on November 7, 2016, and the Plaintiff applied for military service reduction or exemption on November 2, 2016 for the Defendant’s “a difficulty in maintaining livelihood.”

On February 20, 2017, the Defendant held a deliberative committee on reduction and exemption of military service with respect to the Plaintiff’s difficulty in livelihood, and deliberated on whether the Plaintiff’s exemption from the principal under Article 24(1)4 of the Regulations on the Reduction and Exemption of Military Service and the fact that the parent’s property is high pursuant to Article 24(1)1 of the Act on the Reduction and Exemption of Military Service, and decided to reject the Plaintiff’s reduction and exemption of military service on the ground that “the Plaintiff may assist the obligor’s livelihood, such as the amount of property and the amount of income reduced and exempted exceeds the standard amount of reduction and exemption at the time when the Plaintiff’s principal includes the Plaintiff, and in particular, it is determined that the Defendant may assist the obligor’s livelihood, such as the Plaintiff’s ability to support due

E. On February 21, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that an application for reduction of or exemption from military service for reasons of difficulty in livelihood was rejected due to the following reasons (non-taxation from military service).

hereinafter referred to as "the case."