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

A. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning the instant case is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary cause No. 1 is not recognized on the ground that there was no evidence as to whether Han-domin was engaged in the campaign in the islands. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary cause No. 1 is not recognized. The instant disciplinary cause No. 1, “the Plaintiff, etc. filed a constitutional complaint without going through the direction process with Defendant Minister’s intention not to comply with the instant order, and without going through the direction process.” In fact, whether Han-domin was actually engaged in the campaign in the islands was not directly related to the instant disciplinary cause No. 1, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on a different premise is without merit.

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant order is not a superior with the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff does not have any duty to obey the instant order, and thus, the instant disciplinary cause ① is not recognized. In full view of the foregoing, the Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the instant order, barring any special circumstances, if a subordinate commander issues an order to enforce the instant order. The Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the order, and the instant disciplinary cause ① “the Plaintiff et al. files a constitutional complaint without going through the recommendation process with the intention of not complying with the instant order by the Defendant Secretary,” and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as not having been directly subject to the instant order, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on a different premise is without merit.

Article 25(4) of the Military Service Rule provides that “A soldier shall not request the outside of the military to resolve the grievances related to his service through petition, collective signature, or other means that are not prescribed by the law.” Since the Constitutional Court’s constitutional complaint on a constitutional complaint is prescribed by the Constitution and the law, the plaintiff asserts that it does not request the outside resolution of the military through means that are not prescribed by the law.

In full view of the contents and purport of the provisions of Articles 23(1), 24(1), and 25(1) of the Military Service Rule, Article 51-3 of the Military Personnel Management Act, Article 60-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Service Rule, and Article 24(4) of the Military Service Rule, in cases where a soldier gives instructions or orders to his superior, he shall recommend them to his superior through the chain of command, and, even if there are other opinions on such instructions or orders, he shall make a proposal to his superior and request resolution outside the military without going through such chain of command, barring any special circumstances. Even where a superior’s instructions or orders contain the restriction or violation of the basic rights of the military personnel, barring special circumstances, unless the instructions or orders are clearly unlawful, it shall respect his superior’s intention who given such instructions or orders, and thus, he shall not refuse it without permission, so that the plaintiff’s right to request adjudication on constitutional complaint, including the method of internal discipline, cannot be resolved within the military through the chain of command and order, and the plaintiff’s right to request for adjudication.

Applicant In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the grounds for disciplinary action of this case are not recognized in the trial, but the above argument is not different from the argument in the trial of the first instance, and since the judgment of the first instance is judged properly, the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)