The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 17, 2018, the Plaintiff moved into the Republic of Korea on January 1, 2017, but began to engage in the duties of the Administrative Distribution Agency from September 17, 2018 due to hospital hospitalization.

From May 3, 2019 to May 3, 2019, B was serving as the Head Office of the Military Service Corps of B (hereinafter referred to as “Chief Forces”) as the Administrative Director (rank: Lieutenant).

B. On August 16, 2019, the Defendant imposed a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for two months of suspension from office based on Article 56 of the Military Personnel Management Act on the ground that he/she has breached faithfully the duty according to the grounds for the attached Table C (hereinafter “the deceased”).

C. Around September 3, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the above disciplinary action. Around January 30, 2020, the head of the water services group rendered a decision to reduce the above disciplinary action to one month by January 30, 2020.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), . [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Paragraph (1) of the Attached Disciplinary Reason No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Reason No. 1”)

In light of the relevant grounds for disciplinary action, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes “a person who is responsible for leading and supervising a specific work and duties” under Article 7 of the Regulations on Prevention and Handling of Accidents in the Army. The Plaintiff is merely in charge of “the field of personal affairs, personnel management, and prevention of accidents,” which is the basic duty of the administrative diffusion officer, and does not constitute “the person prescribed in the said provision.” Furthermore, the Plaintiff is unable to faithfully perform the said basic duty, and the Plaintiff’s act is unable to ascertain the deceased’s incidental life. 2) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty to check all inspection results of the deceased, and to take necessary measures, and the risk of suicide, such as the result of the work adaptation conducted by the deceased, is also two.