1. The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2019 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 2016, the Plaintiff was appointed as a Army officer, and served as the 11th Army officer as the headquarters commander of the 11th Army Special Class B (Subrogation).

B. On March 14, 2019, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure for one month of salary reduction following a resolution of the disciplinary committee on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct and thereby violated his duty to maintain dignity (the act of violence, cruel treatment / implied or aiding and abetting).

The Plaintiff neglected to witness and take any measure against C’s shoulder 2 to 3 times in his office in Pyeongtaek Information and Office, and instead, up to 30 times the phrase “D to educate D, communicate,” thereby committing assaulting C at around 16:0 on the end of April 2018, at the information and office, about four drinking shoulders for reasons such as failure to provide information, etc., and directed C to the same effect that it is necessary for C to communicate with D on May 15:0 of 2018, on the ground that there was an act of assaulting C over 2 times, such as assaulting five sides of D and six shoulders, etc. (hereinafter “the grounds for the instant disciplinary action”).

C. On April 3, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the above disciplinary action and made an appeal to the Appeal Committee for Disciplinary Action, and on May 3, 2019, the said Committee changed the disciplinary action in January of salary reduction to reprimand.

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition"), which was mitigated due to reprimand, on March 14, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for recognition"), is without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The grounds for disciplinary action in the instant case cannot be deemed legitimate grounds for disciplinary action since the date and place of the grounds for disciplinary action are not specified.

B. The non-existence of the grounds for disciplinary action was not known that D had not observed the scene of assault by D from C, and that D was assaulted by C.

The Plaintiff’s phrase “education and communication,” which the Plaintiff provided to C, was the purport of “an instruction and guidance to work well.”