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

A. On March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was commissioned 60 days at the Korea Air Force Academy (hereinafter “Corporation”) and passed the first class flight training course to its steering branch. However, on December 6, 2016, when the Plaintiff went away in the course of the middle class flight training and was serving as a finance officer after being converted to the finance branch, the Plaintiff submitted a five-year application for discharge from active service to the Defendant on December 6, 2016 pursuant to Article 7(1)1 of the Military Personnel Management Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Military Personnel Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28266, Sept. 5, 2017; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act”).

B. However, on January 26, 2017, the committee for the examination on discharge from active service in the five-year period of the Air Force Headquarters decided not to select the Plaintiff as the discharged on the ground that it could prevent the lack of manpower in the financial branch from being discharged from active service due to the lack of manpower. Accordingly, on February 6, 2017, the Defendant held a committee for the personnel of the five-year officer in the five-year period of discharge from active service and decided not to select the Plaintiff as the discharged from active service on February 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Military Personnel Review Committee of the Ministry of National Defense, but was dismissed on May 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The first argument of the plaintiff 1) The defendant rejected the plaintiff's request for discharge due to lack of human resources in the Air Force Treasury finance branch. However, prior to the disposition of this case, the chief of the Air Force Planning and Management Staff of the Air Force presented his opinion on "agreement" with respect to the plaintiff's discharge support, and there is insufficient evidence to deem that there is lack of human resources in the Air Force Treasury finance branch, so the disposition of this case was unlawful by misconception of facts related to the shortage of human resources in the Air Force Treasury finance branch. 2)