1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff, as a military personnel in the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, served as CJ D D D D D D D D, from April 1, 2016 to December 28, 2017.

On May 19, 2017, the head of C resignation group violated the duty to maintain dignity by making the Plaintiff’s his/her father and his/her father and his/her father’s father’s self-esteem as stated in attached Table 1, as stated in the facts subject to disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant facts subject to disciplinary action”) was subject to disciplinary action for three months of salary reduction, on the ground that it was subject to disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “First Disciplinary Action”). On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the first disciplinary action. On April 9, 2018, the 3th Field Commander rendered a decision to revoke the first disciplinary action on the ground that there is a serious defect in the disciplinary procedure of the Disciplinary Committee.

On May 18, 2018, the defendant, after going through the resolution procedure of the disciplinary committee, took a disciplinary measure against the plaintiff on May 18, 2018 for three months of salary reduction.

hereinafter referred to as "instant disciplinary action"

(2) On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disciplinary action. However, on December 20, 2018, the 3 Camp Commander rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on December 20, 2018. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the principle of double risk prohibition of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the principle of good faith, and the first disciplinary committee of the first disciplinary action violating the principle of excessive prohibition, the principle of good faith, and the principle of excessive prohibition, issued the Plaintiff a notice of attendance from May 12, 2017 to May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff presented the notice of attendance to the Plaintiff on May 9, 2017, and received only the Plaintiff’s signature, and did not provide a notice of attendance, and thus, the first disciplinary action was invalid due to a significant and obvious defect in the Plaintiff’s defense right of defense.

Nevertheless, without any change in circumstances, the same disciplinary action is imposed for the same reason as the primary disciplinary action.