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

A. On July 15, 2008, the Minister of National Defense (hereinafter “the Minister of National Defense”) reported from the Armed Forces Commander on the information that the Korean Federation of Korean University Students Association (hereinafter “Korean War”) promotes a movement to send culture books (23 books) to soldiers on active duty in order to strengthen the anti-government-unclucent project against soldiers; and on the other hand, the Korean War General decided by the Supreme Court as a transfer-in organization to the soldiers on active duty, determined that the punishment of the movement to send books to the soldiers on active duty would pose a risk of undermining the mental power of the national army; and on the other hand, on July 22, 2008, based on Article 16-2 of the Military Service Rule, the Minister of National Defense instructed the commander of the Military Forces to take measures to block the entry of books of the said 23 books into the military branch (hereinafter “the instant order”), and ordered the President of the Korean Army (hereinafter “the Minister of National Defense”). The Minister of National Defense under the direction of the Minister of National Defense (hereinafter “Defendant 208”).

B. The Plaintiff passed the examination for appointment of military advocates on December 14, 200 and completed the curriculum of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, and was appointed as military advocates on April 2003, and was in office as military advocates at the time of the instant instruction.

C. On October 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an adjudication on constitutional complaint with five other military advocates, including B, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) on the ground that Article 47-2 of the Military Personnel Management Act (amended by Act No. 10703, May 24, 2011; hereinafter the same) and Article 16-2 of the Military Service Rule violates the principle of comprehensive delegation prohibition, the principle of statutory reservation, and the principle of clarity. The instant order and the said Military Service Rule violate the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights.

Defendant president on March 18, 2009, with regard to the grounds for disciplinary action (i) through (iv) as set forth by the Plaintiff, and (ii) the grounds for disciplinary action (ii) as set forth below.