1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the second to the 19th one of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of whether it is eligible to file a petition or administrative litigation while rendering the instant disposition, and the procedure and period of objection, which constitutes a violation of Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act. As such, the instant disposition ought to be revoked. 2) In the event of discharge pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Military Personnel Management Act, the issue of whether the person is eligible to receive an honorary discharge allowance may vary depending on what date the date on which the date of the examination of discharge is determined, on the grounds that the date of discharge becomes final and conclusive, and whether the person is eligible

At the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of an application for an honorary discharge allowance, the investigation was conducted prior to the date of the application, and the summary order was filed before April 24, 2015, which is the date of discharge, and thus, based on the date of discharge, it does not constitute an exemption from the payment of an honorary discharge allowance pursuant to the proviso to Article 96(2)2 of the instant Directive.

In addition, the instant disposition that excluded the Plaintiff from the person entitled to the payment of the honorary discharge allowance on the ground that the investigation is ongoing by applying Article 96(2)(3) of the instant Directive, even though the facts constituting a relatively minor crime are claimed for a summary order, shall be revoked as it constitutes abuse of discretion.

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance), and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

(c) there is a procedural defect for determination 1.