1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff served as an administrative distribution officer in the C Heavy Group B of the 30-mechanic C of the 30-mechanic C.

B. On September 17, 2015, Japan, which is a 92 mechanicalized brigade B, was subject to the duty of care on the ground that he was unable to become aware of cancer E while he was on the duty of care for the sick and A and B B.

After that, K-2 small gun with stone added to the gun with a stone, attached the gun under his/her own sprink, and emitted one blank sprink and suffered bodily injury on the sprink, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). C.

On October 15, 2015, with respect to the instant accident, the Defendant took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground of a breach of duty in good faith (violation of supervision and negligence of duties) (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the main contents of the facts subject to the disciplinary measure are as follows.

1. A person subject to a disciplinary action for a breach of good faith (the neglect of command and supervision; hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) violated a duty of good faith by failing to manage learning and consideration in accordance with the contents set out in the personnel management rules for noncommissioned Officers (Regulations 112), the division of duties by company level position, and the guidelines for the management system for learning and consideration.

2. In spite of the fact that a person subject to disciplinary action for breach of duty (the "Disciplinary Reason No. 2", hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Reason No. 2") has to identify and make efforts to make decisions on his/her military life assistance as an administrative distribution officer, he/she did not properly take measures such as military life education due to an appointed soldier, and coercion of various cancer engineers to live in the military, thereby violating the duty of good faith.

On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal (hereinafter “instant appeal”) against the instant disposition with the Appeal Review Committee against the Mechanical Fire Assistants’ 30 Es. 30, 2015.

On November 12, 2015, the appeals review committee of the 30-mechanic Group dismissed the instant appeal, and the decision to dismiss the appeal was to the Plaintiff on the same day.