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 February 22, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Army Noncommissioned Officers, and from September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff served as an administrative supply officer at the 30-mechanic Team B major C major.

B. D, such as the results of D’s transfer and new personal examination, was admitted to the Army Training Center and received education, and transferred to B, B, B, 30 on January 7, 2016. As a result of the examination of new personality conducted on March 10, 2016, it was determined that the assistance of experts was necessary, namely, by stating that “it may be connected to military life in an irregular and accident, and the military adaptation level is very low.”

C. D’s attempt to commit suicide was around 00:10 on March 14, 2016, and around 00:10, D attempted to commit suicide by taking advantage of string the string of the 2nd floor studal studs to the rail string, which was sent to a hospital without consciousness around 00:37 on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

1) On April 14, 2016, the Defendant neglected to perform his duties as stated in the separate grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”) and violated the duty in good faith on the ground that “the Plaintiff neglected to perform his duties as stated in the separate grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”)” and the Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff under Article 56 of the former Military Personnel Management Act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

(2) The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disciplinary action, but the head of the 30th Franking Disease Group’s task division (the administrative rules of the 30th Franking Disease Group) on June 13, 2016, inasmuch as the performance of a new sexual test is exclusively carried out by the commander who is not an administrative diffusion officer, the ground for disciplinary action is not recognized. However, the ground for disciplinary action in this case was determined to be justifiable and to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute has been raised.