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 November 1, 1997, the Plaintiff was assigned to the Army Warrant C, and served for the information and communications unit B of the National Armed Forces Command from February 25, 2013 to October 29, 2014.

B. Around September 2013, the Plaintiff was evaluated as “necessary observation and guidance” in the latter half of 2013; around March 2014, the Plaintiff was evaluated as “in continuous service inappropriate” in the regular rating in the first half of 2014; and on May 14, 2014, the head of the information and communications network head, who received from the head of the 5th information and communications network head, insulting his superior on the ground that he was well aware of the duties of his subordinate staff members, and abused his superior on the ground that he was not aware of the duties of his subordinate staff members, and arbitrarily sold the KT Examination Team, which was kept in custody as waste materials, to the scrap metal company located in Pyeongtaek-si, using a military vehicle, was subject to a disciplinary disposition of salary reduction three months for the cause of the disciplinary action; and received from the latter half of 2014 on September 2014, the “regular observation and guidance” was evaluated as necessary” in the regular rating.

C. The Plaintiff was submitted to the Army Headquarters to the Investigation Committee on the Compatibility of Active Duty Service (hereinafter “Investigation Committee”) on the ground that the service performance rating falls short of the criteria determined by the Chief of Staff under Article 57 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, after one evaluation of “ineligible for Continuous Service” and two evaluations of “involuntary observation/guidance” as above.

On December 15, 2014, the Investigation Committee decided to refer the Plaintiff to the Examination Committee on Discharge from Active Service (hereinafter “Examination Committee on Discharge from Active Service”). On January 15, 2015, the Examination Committee decided to refer the Plaintiff to the Examination Committee on Discharge from Active Service, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “the Plaintiff’s person who destroys the military unity and destroys the military unity” under Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act and Article 56(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act.

According to the results of the examination by the committee for examination of discharge from active service, the defendant on January 1, 2015.