1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 27, 2004, the Plaintiff was assigned to the Army Noncommissioned Officers and promoted to the First Lieutenant on November 1, 2007. From March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff served as C belonging to the First Class.

B. On June 29, 2015, the Committee decided to refer the Plaintiff to the examination for discharge from active service.

C. On July 23, 2015, the Military Service Review Committee of the Army Headquarters decided to discharge the Plaintiff from active service in an additional manner.

Accordingly, on July 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to discharge the Plaintiff from active service on the grounds that “the Plaintiff falls under Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act, and Article 56(1)2 and 56(2)1 through 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff 1 filed a personnel petition on the instant disposition, but the Army Headquarters Military Personnel Review Committee dismissed Plaintiff’s petition on December 8, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the disposition of discharge of defects in the procedure brings about a change in the status of the Plaintiff, the disposition of this case is only governed by the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, and there is no statement of fact corresponding to the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the Plaintiff did not present the grounds for disposition in violation of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The Plaintiff’s non-existence of the grounds for disposition does not constitute “a person who lacks judgment capacity” as provided by Article 56(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Management Act, “a person who interferes with his/her duties or damages military dignity due to his/her loss of life,” “a person who destroys military unity,” and “a person who destroys military unity,” and there is no ground for disposition of this case.