1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined by adding the evidence submitted to the court of first instance to the

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance or supplementation of such judgment as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. The second 6-7 pages 2 to 6 of the contents of the dismissal or supplementation shall read “a breach of good faith” to “a breach of good faith” (a violation of good faith), and a breach of good faith (a violation of another’s right due to abuse of authority).

From the end of Chapter 6 to the end of Chapter 4, “(the person subject to disciplinary action against a soldier, etc. shall be subject to disciplinary action against the person having authority over disciplinary action who is the initial disposition office in the form of mitigated punishment if the initial disciplinary action has been mitigated by an appeal)” shall be added, and the following shall be added: “(d) related Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as indicated in the separate sheet; and “relevant Acts and subordinate statutes” shall be added to the separate sheet.

"A. 27" shall be added to the macroscopic evidence of heading 14.

1.The following shall be added to the end of Part 9:

According to the document (Evidence A No. 27) responding to the Plaintiff’s interrogation in lieu of attending as a witness at this court, E, from around 2014, with the Plaintiff, tried to receive the surgery and treatment of the Plaintiff from around 2014 to the time of voluntary retirement in 2017, and tried to provide the voluntary retirement because it is too difficult at the time of 2014, and it does not have two copies after voluntary retirement, and even according to these contents, it can be seen that the Plaintiff’s work had a significant impact on the E’s decision of retirement.