전역처분등취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Determination on the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance and the plaintiff's assertion
A. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning the instant case is the same as the judgment by the court of the first instance except for the following additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion. As such, the reasoning of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article
B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary cause of this case is not recognized, since no evidence was submitted as to (i) whether Korea-Japan was able to carry out a campaign in the military book.
However, the instant disciplinary cause ① “the Plaintiff, etc. filed a constitutional complaint without going through the recommendation process through the chain of command with the intention of not complying with the instant order by the Defendant Secretary.” As the instant disciplinary cause was not directly related to the instant disciplinary cause ①, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part based on a different premise is without merit.
The Plaintiff asserted that the instant order was not recognized as grounds for disciplinary action (i.e., the Plaintiff, because it did not have any duty to obey the instant order, since the Plaintiff did not have any relation with the Plaintiff.
Comprehensively taking account of the following facts, Article 47-2 of the Military Personnel Management Act, and Articles 19 and 23 of the Military Service Rule, where a tugboat commander issues an order to enforce the instant order, the Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the order, except in extenuating circumstances.
The grounds for disciplinary action of this case are as follows: "The plaintiff et al. filed a constitutional complaint without following the recommendation procedure through the command system with the intention of not complying with the direction of the defendant Minister," and even if the plaintiff is not a direct person subject to the direction of this case, it cannot be deemed that the grounds for disciplinary action of this case were not recognized. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part based on the different premise is justified.