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 8, 1984, the Plaintiff was appointed as noncommissioned Officers and discharged from military service on December 31, 1988.

Since August 1, 1990, the Plaintiff was appointed as a Class-I general civilian military employee, and was promoted to Grade-V on January 1, 1995. From September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a 51st group of the 51st group of the 167 group of the 51st group of the 51st group of the 201st group of the B group of the B group, and was dispatched as an administrative leader from July 1, 2015 to the same large C group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 2

B. On March 22, 2016, the Defendant, who was the person having authority over disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, was subject to disciplinary action, such as demotion, against the Plaintiff on the ground of the grounds for disciplinary action as follows (hereinafter “instant grounds”).

The Plaintiff, who works as a member of the relevant regional resource management officer, without permission from August 24, 2015, has used the private labor force North Korea, which was not authorized from August 24, 2015, as a member of the regional office, without permission, to use it, and stored three materials related to the military at a certain level, and access the Internet without the establishment of a security program by using the public labor force of the C Si without the installation of the security program, violates the duty of confidentiality (violation of other security regulations), and uses it as personal leisure activities, such as listening to music during a day by using the said labor force, or going through the Internet, etc., and regardless of the pointed out several times of the regional ledger, the Plaintiff used the private labor force as above for the purpose of inspection and investigation until January 28, 2016.

C. On June 28, 2016, the appeal commission for civilian workers’ appeal against the Plaintiff was filed with the 3th Preferred Military Commander, the head of the next superior military unit. On June 28, 2016, the appeals commission for the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiff decided to change the suspension from office for three months, taking into account all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff in relation to a disciplinary action. The third Preferred Military Commander changed on June 30, 2016.

(hereinafter the defendant's disciplinary action on March 22, 2016, which was mitigated for three months of suspension, is called the "disposition" of this case.