1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 1, 2001, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Navy, and promoted to the So-young on December 1, 201, and served as a staff member of the Maritime Operations Headquarters B from February 4, 2016 to the Maritime Operations Headquarters B.

On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to the disciplinary measure of three months of suspension from office due to the Plaintiff’s breach of good faith, breach of duty to refrain from leaving his/her workplace, and breach of duty to maintain dignity (e.g., damage) (hereinafter “instant suspension disposition”). The instant suspension disposition became final and conclusive as it was without appeal by the Plaintiff.

On May 19, 2017, the Navy Headquarters notified the Plaintiff of the fact that it was referred to the “Investigative Committee inappropriate to serve on active duty” (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Committee”) on the ground of the following grounds.

On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action of three months from office due to the violation of good faith by the operations headquarters on April 17, 2017, and was referred to the Investigation Committee pursuant to Article 57 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Service Act and Article 9 subparagraph 2 of the Military Service Regulation.

The Investigation Committee shall investigate whether the plaintiff's active service is inappropriate, taking into account the following factors:

1. In other words, the fact that an operations company issued on April 17, 2017 violated the duty of good faith (such as audit, inspection of security, evasion of incidental business affairs, etc. to its affiliated members), the fact that an operations company violated the duty of care not to leave the place of work, the fact that an operations company violated the duty of care not to leave the place of work, and the fact that an operations company violated the duty of care not to maintain dignity (defluence), and the opinion of the persons subject thereto;

2. Former assignment (marine and land) also led to the extinguishment of military units under its control, such as the transfer of responsibility to military units or the view of high-tension toward military units, and the Investigation Committee on the assertion that an officer lacks qualities, such as active performance of duties or management of military units, and the opinion of the relevant officer is examined.