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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who served as the Army Lieutenant.

B. On May 4, 2016, the Seoul Central Defense Acquisition Program Investigation Division prosecuted the Plaintiff for violating the Military Secret Protection Act.

C. On May 17, 2016, the Army Chief of Staff issued an order of temporary retirement (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff under “2016 Personnel Order (Officers) 617.”

On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment of two years and six months (Ministry of National Defense general military court 2016Da11), and the Plaintiff and the military prosecutor filed an appeal.

In the appellate court, the Plaintiff was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment (Ministry of National Defense 2016No316), and the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on April 27, 2017 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do3113). The judgment of the High Court for Armed Forces became final and conclusive on April 27, 2017, and the Plaintiff retired from office on April 28, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Military Personnel Management Act does not have any grounds to delegate the authority for appointment to the Chief of Staff when not in wartime. However, Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act provides that “the Minister of National Defense shall order the reinstatement of an officer who was a leave of absence or a leave of absence from office to the Chief of Staff: Provided, That the authority on the temporary retirement or reinstatement of an officer who was a leave of absence from office to the Chief of Staff may be delegated to the Chief of Staff or the head of a military unit dispatched to a foreign country.

Ultimately, the instant disposition is null and void due to significant and apparent defects by the President or the Chief of Staff, other than the Minister of National Defense, who has the authority to issue an order of leave of absence as an appointment authority under the Military Personnel Management Act.

Therefore, the defendant did not pay wages to the plaintiff due to the disposition of this case.