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 is a soldier who was appointed on August 1, 2007 and served in the Army 61 Volunteer Team B from March 12, 2014.

B. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant was subject to the disciplinary action for three months of salary reduction due to the grounds for the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty to report and obey orders as follows.

Grounds for Disciplinary Action

1. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a false report on the completion of return to the large registry in the process of returning to the large registry after the large conference in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu.

2. The Plaintiff breached its duty to obey orders by continuously maintaining the period of strengthening military preparedness, and thereby emphasizing a sound drinking culture, but at the latest, the Plaintiff breached its duty to obey orders by, for instance, giving the captain D a cause of evading without permission on the following day.

C. On May 2, 2014, the 3 Camp of the Army, the head of the superior unit, filed an appeal against the said reduction disposition. On May 2, 2014, the 3 Camp of the Army, the 3 Camp of the Army, determined that there was no suspicion as to the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of good faith (false report) among the grounds for disciplinary action, the 1 month reduction of salary was decided only on the ground of the violation of the duty of good faith (violation of order) among the grounds

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion of the grounds for disciplinary action exists or not is likely to drink two-lanes with E and D after the introduction into the large registry at the time. However, D’s omission without permission is merely a personal circumstance of D, and as such, D’s omission without permission, it cannot be subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground of D’s omission without permission. (2) In full view of the above facts of recognition and the statement of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of this Court, and the fact-finding results on the head of the 61 volunteer group of this Court, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

A. The plaintiff, D, E.