The Defendant’s disposition of discharge from active service inappropriate for the Plaintiff on June 25, 2019 shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred to the Army as Captain, and served as the head office of this duty, and served as an officer in personnel administration division in the same hospital from December 27, 2017.

On June 26, 2018, the Defendant was subject to two months of suspension from office due to a violation of the duty to maintain dignity (sexual assault, etc.) on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). The Plaintiff and B Hospital’s Central Provision of Nursing Services, and C, who was in charge of supply, committed an inappropriate act as follows. This constitutes “inappropriate relationship” under Article 4-5(2) of the Act on the Disciplinary Measures against Military Personnel in the Ministry of National Defense, and the person subject to disciplinary action ultimately violated the duty to maintain dignity (sexual assault, etc.).

1. On April 29, 2017, at around 12:15, the Plaintiff visited C’s own home in the state without the spouse of C, which was a disciplinary action, and was witnessed to C’s spouse captain captain D E.

2. Visiting 19:30 square meters on November 2017 to the F University Campus newly relocated by the Plaintiff and C, a disciplinary action, at around 19:30 square meters, to the end of the 2017 F University.

3. December 31, 2017 (day)

(a) around 17:37: around 17:37 visited C’s home to the mixed Plaintiff’s home to send approximately two hours;

나. 19:18 경 같이 원고의 자가에서 나와 G 소재 ‘H ’에서 식사를 하고 인근 ‘I’ 매장에서 쇼핑을 하고 21:20 경 C을 자가에 내려 주어 헤어졌다가( 이동과정에서 서로 팔짱을 끼고 손을 잡고 이동하였음),

C. Around 21:35, at around 21:35, C moved to the Plaintiff’s home and entered the apartment entrance number directly after entering the apartment entrance, and the Chief of Staff at Snnnishing the time after 23:5:5 on May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted the Plaintiff to the Military Service Review Committee inappropriate for active duty service, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s privacy under Article 56(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Service Act is a person who interferes with his duty or damages the military prestige.”