1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3...

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a person who is performing C's duties at the Information Headquarters since he/she moved into the Information Headquarters Section B on November 24, 2011.

On October 7, 2014, according to Article 226(1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Officers 110 Officers, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 122 of the Army Regulations, the Plaintiff was selected as a person subject to continuous service non-conformity on the basis of the evaluation of two consecutive occasions of continuous service and the continuation of one time of continuous service.

On November 20, 2014, the Personnel Review Committee investigated the facts about the Plaintiff’s results of the evaluation, and judged that the Plaintiff constitutes “unapplicable person” to continue service, and the Plaintiff was referred to the Committee on Investigation of Additional Status of Active Service on December 22, 2014.

As a result of the investigation of the plaintiff, the Investigation Committee decided to refer the plaintiff to the committee for the examination on discharge of the Army Headquarters.

On January 29, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Military Service Review Committee was held on January 29, 2015, and that the Plaintiff may directly attend the Review Committee and make an explanation.

On January 29, 2015, the Military Service Review Committee decided to discharge the Plaintiff from active service, and the Defendant, on January 30, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the resolution by the Review Committee on Discharge from Active Service that “the Plaintiff was discharged from active service and retired from active service on February 6, 2015,” and ordered the Plaintiff to discharge the Plaintiff on February 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition of discharge from active service”).

On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition of discharge from active service, filed a personnel petition with the Military Personnel Appeal Committee, and the Military Personnel Appeal Committee rejected the petition on the ground that the petition filed by the Plaintiff was unlawful due to its lapse of the period.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of discharge of this case is merely the receipt of a written notice of the result of the examination of discharge from active duty, and the order of discharge from active duty. The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of discharge from active duty.