1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 1, 1987, the Plaintiff was so-called the Air Force, but was discharged on May 31, 2002. On January 1, 2003, the Plaintiff was peculiar as a Class-I civilian military employee, and served as Class-III civilian military employee at the headquarters of the headquarters around 2015.

On August 3, 2018, the Defendant issued a three-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, along with the Navy C and Civilian D, was provided with meals equivalent to KRW 34,00,00 in each business-related person H on October 17, 2015, and in “G” in “F”, the Defendant was subject to the disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for the suspension of office for three months (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”).

On September 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the head of the National Defense Information Headquarters, and the head of the National Defense Information Headquarters rendered a decision to reduce the disciplinary punishment for the period of three months of salary reduction for the plaintiff.

(C) Article 7(1) of the Regulations on Disciplinary Action against the National Armed Forces Headquarters, which provides that a person subject to disciplinary action shall be included in the members of the disciplinary committee if the person subject to disciplinary action is a civilian military employee and two or more civilian military employees are included in the members of the disciplinary committee. However, there is procedural defect in violation of the above regulations by attending the meeting and voting, even if the person subject to disciplinary action is a civilian military employee.

The Plaintiff, at the time of the absence of a disciplinary cause, listened to the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff participated in the instant meal service at the time of the absence of a disciplinary cause, and provided personnel with guidance professors, and asked H questions necessary for preparing the Plaintiff’s thesis, and did not take food at all. In light of the size of the Plaintiff’s business, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a person related to BP and official duties. At the time of the instant meal service, the number of persons attending the instant meal service was 9 to 10, and the Plaintiff’s other money, valuables, and entertainment from H.