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 served as the First Class C commander at the 78 Assistant Soldiers Group B of the 27th Army Team at the Army.

B. On February 5, 2018, the Disciplinary Committee decided on the Plaintiff’s salary reduction disposition for three months for the following reasons, and the Defendant rendered a three-month salary reduction disposition against the Plaintiff on February 7, 2018 pursuant to Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act.

The Plaintiff neglected to manage, direct, and supervise the entire military forces by failing to recognize such fact for about 11 hours after leaving the workplace, even though he/she left the workplace on January 5, 2018 at around 22:50, the Plaintiff breached his/her duty of due care (the neglect of supervision).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on March 5, 2018, and received a decision to change the salary reduction disposition for three months around March 21, 2018 to the reprimand.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”, which was mitigated by a reprimand disposition, on February 7, 2018. 【Grounds for Recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1, 7, and 8, Eul’s 3, and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (to be understood as follows) non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action 1: (i) the Plaintiff performed patrol duty from January 6, 2018 to 03:00; (ii) the Plaintiff did not have any problem at the time of patrol; (iii) D left the workplace beyond the Plaintiff’s fence in an area other than the Plaintiff’s patrol zone; (iv) the officer on duty confirms the existence of a company in his/her daily life; (v) the officer on duty confirms the existence of a company in his/her daily life; and (v) the Plaintiff left the workplace by neglecting his/her duty to report to the Plaintiff; and (v) the Plaintiff did not directly leave the workplace without receiving any report by January 6, 2018, and then confirmed that there was no D in his/her daily life room at around 10:04.