1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was assigned to the Army as Staff Sergeant, and on July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff was exclusively assigned to the Army as the 25th Volunteer Team, and served as the 72 joint ventures until February 12, 2016.

On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure for two months from office due to a violation of the duty to maintain dignity (violation of gender military discipline) as follows by the head of the 25th Military Service Corps at the Army:

- - Sound

1. Title of disciplinary action: Breach of duty to maintain dignity;

2. Facts subject to disciplinary action: The Plaintiff, even though being aware that C is his/her spouse, had sexual intercourse with C on the first day and incompet with C on the non-fluence place of the first day and the first time from June 21, 2014 to June 21, 2014, compared C with C in the number of times a week or in the non-fluence in the vicinity of the Simsan-Eup in the Simsan-si.

The Plaintiff is a person who has been married on June 21, 2014 after reporting the marriage on March 2014 with D and the spouse who was married on June 21, 2014.

With knowledge that C is his/her spouse, on November 201, 2014, the Plaintiff had been sexual intercourse with C once with his/her neighboring Buddhist telecomter around the Geum-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and around February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff provided one-time sexual intercourse with C in the neighboring Buddhist telecomter around Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

As a result, the plaintiff violated his duty to maintain dignity by continuing the unsound relationship.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On January 8, 2016, the Committee for the Investigation into Additional Military Service in the Army (hereinafter “In the Army”) referred the Plaintiff to the Committee for Examination on Discharge from Active Service in the Army. On February 4, 2016, the Committee for Examination on Discharge from Military Service of the Army Headquarters decided to discharge the Plaintiff from active service on the ground that the Plaintiff is unfit for active service.

On February 5, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition of discharge from active service (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on February 5, 2016, according to the resolution of the Military Headquarters Review Committee.

On March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition review with the Military Personnel History Review Committee. However, the said request was dismissed on May 23, 2016.

(Evidences 1 through 5, .