1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff was promoted to Captain on October 1, 2010 and served as the director of the division of the division of the 51 Army Group B Co., Ltd. from October 10, 2014 to the 51st Army C Co., Ltd. D.

On December 22, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to discharge from active service as of December 23, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a person unfit for active service, such as the Plaintiff’s failure in regular physical examination for two consecutive years, upon deliberation by the committee for examination of discharge from active service on December 22, 2014.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the lawfulness of the instant discharge disposition is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus, the instant discharge disposition should be revoked. In so doing, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant discharge disposition is unlawful.

Although the illegality of the plaintiff's referenced to the Investigation Committee for the Improper to Active Service was subject to minor disciplinary action twice at the same rank, such fact alone does not require a reference to the Investigation Committee for the Improper to Active Service, and only when it can be deemed that Article 56 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, which provides the grounds for disciplinary action, falls under the criteria for inappropriate to Active Service, it should be referred to the Investigation Committee for the

However, since the fact that the plaintiff was subject to the second minor disciplinary action cannot be deemed to fall under the criteria for non-conformity with active duty service under Article 56 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, the plaintiff's submission of the plaintiff to the investigation committee that was inappropriate for active duty service with only the fact that the plaintiff was subject to the second minor disciplinary action was abused and abused by discretion, and thus, the discharge disposition of this case is also illegal.

The assault against the major members of the plaintiff's abuse of discretionary power is a fluence of the relevant soldier's body.