1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a person who serves as a new old-style operational soldier in the BS Air Team (hereinafter referred to as the “instant unit”).

On January 19, 2018, the Disciplinary Committee of the instant military unit (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Committee”) stated that “the Plaintiff went to provide meals, such as D, on January 15, 2018, 07:40, and, at the same time, the Plaintiff was waiting for ten minutes at the late time, and that “C shall be able to promptly provide the Plaintiff with a ten-minute waiting for ten minutes.” On the ground that there were three and four occasions per week for the branch members of the instant military unit, “C shall be able to provide a ten-minute list to the Plaintiff.” On the ground that the Plaintiff, at a place where some other military forces are located, sent a food board to C, and reported to C, “I shall not come to the military advocate,” and “I shall report to C, 1303,” and, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated his duty to take disciplinary action (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disciplinary action”), the Defendant committed the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that he violated his duty to take the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s 125th.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 36, and the purport of the entire pleading as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, and the procedural defect of the plaintiff's assertion as to the procedural defect of the plaintiff's argument, and signed only the receipt of the notice of attendance, and did not receive the notice of attendance

The notice of attendance to the plaintiff is clearly written by the plaintiff's service number, and it is not effective as a notice of attendance.

The Plaintiff demanded an interview with a human rights attorney during the appeal procedure against the instant disposition, but not accepted. The Plaintiff intended to submit an obligatory record on an uneasiness, but did not regard it by the Appeal Board.