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 March 1, 1989, the Plaintiff entered the Army as Second Lieutenant on March 1, 1991, and served as the leader of the headquarters of the Special Operation Headquarters B from January 2, 2017 to August 16, 2017.

B. On August 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to dismiss the Plaintiff from the position (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 58(2)2 of the Army Regulations on the ground that the Plaintiff’s abuse of authority under attached Table 2 and the misconduct falling under the assault under [attached Table 8] of the criteria for disciplinary action of an officer determined as follows was low, and that the Plaintiff cannot continue to perform his/her duties at the present position.

On May 22, 2017, at around 23:30, the Plaintiff abused the parts of the body of drinking in drinking, on the ground that the victim C made an investigation into the inspection division into the victim C at the time of her verbal abuse, etc., and abused the official authority by ordering the change of the records of the operation of the body of drinking C.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Central Military Personnel Review Committee of the Ministry of National Defense, but the appeal review was dismissed on November 21, 2018.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Although there was no procedural defect in the Plaintiff’s act of assault in barracks, the instant disposition stated that it constitutes a assault prescribed in [Attachment Table 8] among the criteria for taking a disciplinary action, which is strengthened compared to the Plaintiff’s general assault. As such, there is procedural defect that does not present the grounds and reasons for the instant disposition. 2) Even though the Plaintiff did not have committed an assault in barracks, the Defendant did not determine the assault in barracks as the criteria for taking a disciplinary action of an officer determined by the standards for taking a disciplinary action (attached Table 8).