1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance that exceeds the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 25, 1992, the Plaintiff is a soldier serving in the Army as a military officer.

B. On October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to discharge from a position (hereinafter “instant primary position”) due to a breach of duty by the head of the 56th Army head on October 15, 2009 and a breach of duty to maintain dignity, etc. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to discharge from a position (hereinafter “instant secondary position”). On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to discharge from a position on the ground of a breach of duty to maintain dignity (a verbal violence) from the head of the 56th Army.

C. On July 25, 2016, the head of the Army Group No. 219 of the Army Group No. 56: (a) reported the Plaintiff, who was discharged from his position at least twice in the same rank, to be subject to the non-conformity of active military service.

On August 5, 2016, the Military Manpower Investigation Committee (hereinafter “Investigation Committee”) called up by the head of the 56th Army group of the Army (hereinafter “instant Army Investigation Committee”) decided to refer the Plaintiff to the Military Manpower Investigation Committee on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who was assigned or dismissed at least twice from the same rank”.

E. On August 10, 2016, the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,500,000 as attorney’s fee in preparation for the aforementioned discharge examination committee, and KRW 1,00,000 as of August 31, 2016, and KRW 1,900,000 as of October 10, 2016.

F. On August 30, 2016, the Army Chief of Staff cancelled on October 14, 201, prior to the date of examination, the date of the examination, and thus, the Plaintiff’s notification of holding the committee for examination of discharge from active service was invalid and treated as invalid, and rejected the Plaintiff’s written examination of non-conformity of active duty service.

(g)the provisions pertaining to the examination of assignment, dismissal and enlistment in active service are as follows:

(1) An officer, warrant officer, or noncommissioned officer under Article 17 (Term of Office) (1) of the Military Personnel Management Act shall not be changed to a position or dismissed from a position.

Provided, That the same shall not apply to any of the following cases:

3. To perform the relevant duties;