1. On September 23, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of discharge from active service with respect to the Plaintiff from active service is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

I. Summary of this case

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 23, 2007, the Plaintiff was assigned to the Army Staff Sergeant, and then promoted to the First Lieutenant on January 1, 2012, and served as an investigator at the military police investigation division of the BJ as an investigator.

B. On August 16, 2016, the Army Commander notified the Plaintiff that he/she was submitted to the Military Manpower Investigation Committee (hereinafter “Investigation Committee”). On September 1, 2016, the Investigation Committee decided on September 1, 2016 to refer the Plaintiff to the Committee for Review of Discharge from Active Service (hereinafter “Examination Committee”).

C. Accordingly, on September 8, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she was transferred to the committee for examination on discharge, and the committee for examination on discharge from active service decided on September 20, 2016 that “the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on October 4, 2016.”

On September 23, 2016, the Defendant discharged the Plaintiff from military service on September 23, 2016 (in reserve service on October 4, 2016).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a personnel petition seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Military Personnel History Review Committee, but the said Review Committee rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 13, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence A, Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) 【Each entry】

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The non-existence of the grounds for the non-existence of the grounds for investigation into the non-existence of the grounds for the investigation by the Investigation Committee on the grounds of investigation against the plaintiff. Article 209(1)4 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Officers specifies Article 57 Subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, which provides that “The person whose performance rating is deemed to be “each other appraiser” at least twice from “each other appraiser” shall be referred to the Investigation Committee to investigate whether the person falls under the criteria for non-conformity with the active duty service.”

However, the second half of 2015 against the plaintiff.