1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on April 17, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 28, 1983, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on April 24, 2015 pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Military Personnel Management Act when he/she was discharged from military service on April 24, 2015, as the second Lieutenant of the Korea Army Academy at Army 39, serving as BCOM Commander from April 25, 2013.

2. 27. Application for Honorary Discharge was made.

B. However, since April 13, 2015, when the Plaintiff was subject to investigation by the Ministry of National Defense’s ordinary prosecutor’s office of the Ministry of National Defense due to the suspicion of abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the selection of a person eligible for an honorary discharge allowance on April 17, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant Disposition”). - On April 15, 2015, the date of the deliberation committee for the payment of honorary discharge allowances to the Army (hereinafter “the instant deliberation committee”) for the examination of discharge from active service, the investigation of the Plaintiff is in progress (Article 1747 of the former Directive on the Personnel Management of National Defense (amended by the Ministry of National Defense, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “instant Directive”).

[Article 96(2)(3)]

C. However, on April 21, 2015, the investigation was completed by claiming a summary order of KRW 5 million against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant summary order”). On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition on personnel affairs with the Central Military Personnel Affairs Review Committee of the Ministry of National Defense on the ground of the proviso to Article 96(2)2 of the instant Directive, but was dismissed on October 5 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) The entry in the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes;

B. Article 53-2(1) of the former Military Personnel Management Act provides, “Where a person who served as a soldier for at least 20 years is discharged from active service on his/her own before his/her retirement age, he/she may be paid an honorary discharge allowance within budgetary limits.” In full view of the respective provisions of Articles 2(1), 2(2), 6(2), and 6(3) of the Regulations on the Payment of Honorary Discharge Allowances for Military Personnel, the Defendant.