beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.08.27 2015구합55837

전역명령처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff served as Second Lieutenant in the Army, and was transferred to the First Class of the 15th Class B, October 1, 2013, and served as the Head of the New Disease Education.

B. On July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action for three months of salary reduction due to the violation of the duty to maintain dignity, the violation of the duty to maintain dignity, the violation of the duty to maintain dignity, and the violation of the duty to maintain good faith.

C. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s commander reported the Plaintiff as an associate officer with active duty, the Plaintiff was “person deemed unfit to active duty by the commander,” pursuant to Article 57 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, and the Investigation Committee decided on August 25, 2014 to refer the Plaintiff to the Military Manpower Review Committee.

On September 18, 2014, the Military Service Review Committee of the Army Headquarters decided to discharge the Plaintiff from active service and accordingly, the Defendant issued an order of discharge (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2014 pursuant to Article 37(1)4 of the Military Personnel Management Act.

E. On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Central Military Personnel Review Committee, but was dismissed on December 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a private-friendly with female military forces, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluor, and a insulting fluorial fluorial fluor’s insult

As above, the plaintiff's act is considered and its degree is minor, as well as E, F, and G, the victims, as well as E, F, and G, and the unit members want to take the action against the plaintiff, and in relation to this case, the plaintiff.