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, 2012, the Plaintiff was commissioned as B at the Korea Air Force Academy (hereinafter “Corporation”) and served as C officer for one year and three months. However, on December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written application for discharge from active service to the Defendant on December 15, 2016 pursuant to Article 7(1)1 of the Military Personnel Management Act and Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28266, Sept. 5, 2017; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act”).

B. On January 26, 2017, the committee for the examination on discharge from active service in the five-year period of the Air Force Headquarters officer was an officer from the B-term officer of the Corporation in the year of 2012, who was appointed in the C-V in order to maintain the adequate long-term service personnel for each of the C-V officers in the C-V branch, and decided not to select the plaintiff as the discharged officer, among the plaintiff and D, who were officers of the C-V branch in support of the selection of the discharge from active service of the case,

Accordingly, on February 6, 2017, the Defendant held a personnel committee related to the five-year discharge from active service and decided to refuse to discharge the Plaintiff from active service. On February 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of refusal to discharge the Plaintiff from active service (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Military Personnel Review Committee of the Ministry of National Defense, but was dismissed on June 12, 2017.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case violates the principle of proportionality, the principle of equality, and the right to pursue happiness guaranteed by the Constitution, thereby deviating from and abusing discretion.

1) The former Directive on Personnel Management of the National Defense (amended by the Ministry of National Defense Directive No. 2052, Jul. 17, 2017; hereinafter referred to as the “former National Defense Directive”).