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, 1995, the Plaintiff was in the Army so-called the Army, and thereafter, from December 24, 2012 to December 54, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a three-class commander of the Army Team 56 jointly and severally.

From December 1, 2013, he/she has been promoted to the First Lieutenant, and currently has served in the personnel staff division C of the Army Headquarters.

B. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated good faith (violation of command and supervision) and breached a duty of obeying orders (hereinafter “instant measure”), as stated in attached Table 1, and upon the Plaintiff’s appeal, the Military Headquarters Appeal Board dismissed the appeal on March 5, 2015, deeming that the filing of the instant appeal is groundless.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's violation of the duty of good faith (non-existence of the reason for disposition) is acknowledged that the report on the appearance of a recipient at the time is delayed, but it is argued to the purport that the situation workers delayed reporting at the time without a light situation or delay reporting at the moment, which is attributable to the personal responsibility of sick workers, or even if the responsibility of direction and supervision is recognized, the case is not the case of the Minister's command report, but the direction and supervision should be responsible only to the conductor under the direction system rather than the plaintiff, and the plaintiff does not have the responsibility of direction and supervision.

B) Breach of duty (as to the failure to comply with an initial direction, the Plaintiff became aware of the sound at the time of the Plaintiff’s initial noise, and did not accurately become aware of what circumstances the situation occurred on the 3rd GaP 13th GaP in the Army Group 55th Gap, the Plaintiff’s representative in preparation for the situation, with weighted to the possibility of simultaneous and multiple behavior of the North Korean forces, which is the largest situation.