1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a Class-V civilian military employee who served as a Class-V civilian military employee in the military service from July 1, 2015 to Class-V military service.

B. On March 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a reprimand (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on March 19, 2018, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s military unit members constituted verbal abuse, such as “I am unable to properly comply with the move-in report,” “I am fright where I am,” “I am not drinking,” and “I am am fright,” and “I am am unable to make a copy of this son,” and “I am to be subject to disciplinary action.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition on April 16, 2018, but was dismissed on May 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made in deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination 1) Whether a disciplinary measure is taken when a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a civilian military employee is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to abuse the discretionary power that has been assigned to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as a result of the exercise of discretionary power. In order to deem that a disciplinary measure against a civilian military employee has considerably lost validity under social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined in a case where it can be objectively and clearly deemed that the content of the disciplinary measure is objectively unreasonable, in full view of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du29540, Feb. 27, 2014).