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

A. On July 24, 1990, the Plaintiff was promoted to the superior after being admitted to the special class training group for the special class of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the special group of the group

B. The Plaintiff was selected as a person subject to the continuing service schedule according to the evaluation of the consistency with the continued service schedule.

On September 18, 2015, the Army Headquarters Joint Investigation Committee for Military Service (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Committee”) decided on September 18, 2015 to refer the Plaintiff to the “Transfer for Examination of Discharge from Active Service.”

C. On October 19, 2015, the Military Personnel Management Review Committee decided to retire from active service on October 30, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff falls under Article 56(1)2, 56(2)2, and 56(4)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act (i.e., a person who is lacking judgment capacity, a person who destroys military unity without exclusive and do not gather from among others, and a person who is in charge of private services). The Defendant’s disposition on October 21, 2015, stating that “retirement from active service” is “retirement from military service” and “retirement from military service on October 30, 2015,” and the Defendant’s disposition on October 21, 2015.

D) On November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on personnel affairs with the Military Personnel History Review Committee. On February 23, 2016, the Military Personnel History Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal (a dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Gap’s 1 through 6, and Eul’s 2 through 5, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (i) procedurally, the Investigation Committee must be established in the seven group working for the Plaintiff; (ii) there is an error in the law established in the personnel headquarters; and (iii) according to the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, the Plaintiff may discharge the Plaintiff from active service upon his own will; and (iv) there is an error in the law that the Defendant did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity

② The Plaintiff has substantial merit in performing his/her duties, sufficient ability to perform his/her duties, and against the Gun.