1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 17, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained a disposition of enlistment in active service on the ground that he was subject to enlistment in active service on September 17, 2009, and was assigned a notice of enlistment in active service on December 16, 2014 as a person subject to enlistment in active service on the ground of application for a qualifying examination, university’s study, child-care, employment, departure atmosphere, etc.

B. On December 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for military service reduction or exemption with the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who is neither the principal nor the family members who are unable to maintain their livelihood” under Article 62(1) of the Military Service Act, and the Defendant, ex officio, extended the enlistment date for the Plaintiff from December 16, 2014 to January 28, 2015. However, the Defendant rejected the application for military service reduction or exemption on January 28, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff, upon deliberation and resolution by the deliberative committee on difficult livelihood, was registered as the parent’s family member and resided in the actual parent’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member’s family member, and was supported by the parent’s parents, such as the current parent’

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant disposition. However, on September 22, 2015, the Plaintiff was dismissed on September 22, 2015. The Defendant, on December 22, 2015, filed an application with the Plaintiff for the selection of a person eligible for call-up for full-time reserve service on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s child support, and the Plaintiff was under separate waiting for full-time reserve service as of the date of the resolution. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in subparagraphs A through 3, E, and E, and whether the entire pleadings were taken

2. The plaintiff's assertion is different from his/her parents after marriage, and the plaintiff's parents are included in "family" under Article 62 (1) of the Military Service Act.