1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

From December 28, 2016 to November 17, 2017, the date of dismissal from a position, the Plaintiff served as the B company C company commander (Colonel) of the B company.

On November 28, 2017, the Defendant, following the resolution of the Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Committee”). On November 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure for reprimand (hereinafter referred to as “instant measure”) pursuant to Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty to comply with statutes (other matters), the duty to maintain dignity (such as verbal violence), and the duty to maintain dignity (other matters) as stated in attached Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disciplinary measure”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading, are as shown in the attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, as to the legality of the disposition of this case.

Although the deliberation committee on the dismissal of a position and the disciplinary committee related to a claim of procedural illegality should be practically separated, the defendant appointed D as the chairperson of the disciplinary committee who deliberated on the dismissal of a position to the plaintiff as the chairperson of the disciplinary committee. This constitutes not only a case where a member makes an appraisal or gives testimony concerning a case subject to disciplinary action, etc., but also a violation of Article 8 of the Disciplinary Action and Appeal and Appeal Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "compliance with the disciplinary committee member's instructions") which is a ground for exclusion under Article 12 (1) 2 of the Military Personnel Disciplinary Decree.

Judgment

Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10, the plaintiff was subject to disposition of dismissal of assignment after deliberation by the committee for deliberation on dismissal of assignment for the same reason as the grounds for disciplinary action in this case, and the chairperson of the committee for deliberation on dismissal of assignment to the plaintiff and the disciplinary committee in this case, but it is recognized that Eul participated in the deliberation on dismissal of assignment to the plaintiff.