The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to whether the case constitutes grounds for non-performance of active duty service under the Military Personnel Management Act

(a) The system for discharge from active service under Article 37 of the Military Personnel Management Act and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act is a system that discharges a person inappropriate for active service due to a specific ground prescribed by Presidential Decree from active service from active service through deliberation by the committee for examination on discharge from active service and differs from the purport of and grounds for disciplinary measures

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du18649, Jan. 12, 2012). In so determining, whether a military authority is inappropriate to serve on active duty under the Military Personnel Management Act shall respect the judgment of the military authority, unless there is a clear violation of laws and regulations in light of the unique characteristics of the military, since a wide discretion exists in relevant agencies, such as the Chief of Staff or the

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du12253, Oct. 13, 1998).

The lower court, based on its reasoning, determined that the Defendant’s determination that the Plaintiff constituted “person unfit for active service” under Article 49(1)1 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act does not constitute an obvious violation of laws and regulations.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles, we affirm the judgment of the court below. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, we did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 49(1)1 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act

Furthermore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the Plaintiff formed a de facto marital relationship prior to the enforcement of the amendment B religious organization’s religious organization’s constitutionality is merely disputing the lower court’s examination of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact

2. As to whether the Defendant violated Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, the principle of protection of trust, the principle of prohibition of retroactive application, etc., the lower court held the Plaintiff on July 11, 2017.