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, while working as a professor B and the Army Academy at Army, performed 17 external consignment research including “C research” from May 24, 2007 to March 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant research”).

B. On June 17, 2014, the Ministry of the Army Headquarters General Prosecutor’s Office rendered a disposition of suspending indictment (No. 2014 type No. 20) on the facts embezzled by voluntarily consuming KRW 30,219,616 as research expenses from December 22, 2008 to January 7, 2013 while the Plaintiff engaged in the instant research.

C. From September 8, 2009 to July 3, 2013, the Army Chief of Staff issued a three-month disciplinary measure (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”) on August 27, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty of integrity by embezzlementing the research expenses of the instant case’s KRW 26,473,219 [Article 26,63,369, which appears to be a clerical error; hereinafter “research expenses of the instant case”).

Article 49(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act (a person who has other capabilities or moral defects that interfere with the development of the military) and Article 56(4)3 (a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act (a person who does not know, and makes a false report,), respectively, was discharged on April 30, 201 from active service by the Committee on the Investigation of Unauthorized Status of Active Service, which was held on May 26, 2015.

E. On June 4, 2015, the Defendant issued a discharge order to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s claim of disciplinary action was based on the premise that the instant disciplinary action did not constitute embezzlement, and the grounds for the disposition were nonexistent and the statute of limitations elapsed.