전역처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 4, 1993, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Army as Staff Sergeant, and was promoted to the Army Master on December 1, 2007, and thereafter, from April 30, 2015 to the 127 Military Service Corps B, the Plaintiff served as the vice-chief of the headquarters of the Army as the 127 Military Service Corps B.
B. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) that the Plaintiff driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of about 0.139% on the same day from the refined restaurant located in the fourth 4th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 2015 to the monthly sexual harassment in the 20:53rd eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e
C. On August 27, 2015, the Military Personnel Management Committee decided to discharge the Plaintiff from active duty service, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person with insufficient judgment capacity” under Article 56(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act and “a person who interferes with, or damages, his/her prestige due to, a private life,” under Article 56(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, “a person who destroys military unity,” “a person who destroys military unity,” and “a person who intentionally fails to perform,” under Article 56(3)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act.
Accordingly, on August 28, 2015, the defendant's discharge from active service against the plaintiff is "the instant disposition".
E) The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a petition review with the Appeal Committee for Military Personnel. However, the said claim was dismissed on January 27, 2016. [The respective descriptions of evidence A, Nos. 2, 3, 1, 2, and 4, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings.]
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is subject to disciplinary action due to drinking driving, but drinking driving is related to his/her duty as a soldier.