1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff served as a noncommissioned officer from February 5, 1994 to May 3, 199, and on October 1, 1999, the plaintiff was so-called a so-called officer and was promoted to the So-called Colonel.

B. On November 3, 2011, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure for three months of suspension from office due to a violation of a duty to maintain dignity (sexual disturbance), a violation of a duty to obey (defensive language violence), a violation of a duty to obey (defensive language violence), and a violation of a duty of fairness ( abuse of authority). The appeal procedure was mitigated to three months on January 10, 2012.

Ⅰ. The guidelines for the selection and implementation of honorary discharge;

1. A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs and has served as an officer, warrant officer, or noncommissioned officer in continuous service for at least 20 years from July to December 17:

(a) A person who has been discharged from active service by application and who has been discharged from active service for not less than one year but not more than ten years after the remainder of retirement age (hereinafter referred to as ¡°

2. A person requesting a disciplinary action, a person requesting a disciplinary resolution, or a person subject to a disciplinary action (excluding a person subject to removal or release from office) as of the date of examination of discharge from active service subject to exclusion from selection:

C. The main contents of the “Implementation Plan for Honorary Discharge of Military Personnel during the last half of 2017” announced by the Army Headquarters are as follows.

On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written application for discharge from active service, including an application for discharge from active service.

The Plaintiff’s records on the above disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action records”) are five years of cancellation period under the officer personnel management regulations (Regulations 110), and cancellation period was extended by two years on October 5, 2016 following deliberation by the committee for deliberation on cancellation of criminal punishment records during the quarter of 4/4/2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “the extension of the cancellation period of the instant disciplinary record”).

On July 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to select a person to be discharged from active service to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 24-4 and 53-2 of the former Military Personnel Management Act (amended by Act No. 14609, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 25-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act, and Article 96 of the Military Personnel Management Directive, on the ground that “the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of reduction of salary for three months due to a violation of the period of gender military service, etc., and was not dismissed

hereinafter referred to as "the case."