징계처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff, as the Army Lieutenant Order, was serving as the Director of the C Center D (hereinafter referred to as the “Director D”) from January 1, 2016 to September 2017, 2017 as the Plaintiff, who was serving as the Head of C Center D (hereinafter referred to as the “Director D”).
B During the period from September 14, 2016 to September 18, 2016, North Korea’s piracy organization used contact points between the national defense network and the Internet network to seize large quantities of military data (hereinafter “instant hacking accident”).
On July 12, 2017, the Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of National Defense reviewed the facts subject to disciplinary deliberation that the Plaintiff is responsible for the instant hacking incident as the Plaintiff neglected his/her duties, and recognized the disciplinary actions in attached Form 1, which are some of them, and decided to take disciplinary measures for the reduction of salary for three months pursuant to Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act on the ground that the said disciplinary action
On July 18, 2017, the Minister of National Defense notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition, which is the same content as the above significance.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition on July 27, 2017. The Ministry of National Defense dismissed the appeal on August 22, 2018, and the Ministry of National Defense excluded the same from the facts of disciplinary action, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duties as a supply inspector; and (b) the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duties among the facts of disciplinary action listed in attached Table 1
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 (Evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 12 overlap with Eul evidence No. 3) and whether the overall purport of the pleading was legitimate, or whether the plaintiff was obligated to check whether the disposition of this case was legitimate for logical confusion and physical confusion in the agency No. 2, the plaintiff asserted that the director of D division at the time of the hacking incident.
The duty of the defendant cited as the disciplinary action of the plaintiff, that is, whether the occurrence of logical confusion and physical confusion occurs.