"Request to Nullify Disciplinary Military Education Rejected...Court Dismisses Lawsuit by Discharged Soldier"

Court: "No Legal Interest to Restore After Discharge"

Records Not Reflected in Military Service Certificates or Other External Documents

A discharged soldier’s lawsuit seeking to revoke a disciplinary military education order received during his service has been dismissed by the court.

According to the legal community on September 7, the Administrative Division 2 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Gong Hyunjin) dismissed a lawsuit filed by Mr. A, who was discharged after serving as an Air Force soldier, against the commander of his former unit. The suit demanded cancellation of a disciplinary military education action. A dismissal occurs when a lawsuit does not meet the filing requirements and the case ends without a substantive decision. The court judged that since Mr. A is no longer a soldier, having already been discharged, he has no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disciplinary action.

Seoul Administrative Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

Previously, while serving as a support staff sergeant at the support company of Air Force Unit B’s base battalion, Mr. A visited the dormitory of female officer Sergeant C during night duty, photographed the air conditioner filter, and did not leave immediately. Instead, he made a remark suggesting “let’s hang out together.” The military determined that Mr. A had violated the duty of maintaining dignity and imposed a five-day disciplinary military education penalty. As a result of this penalty, Mr. A’s service period was extended, and he completed his military service five days later than his originally scheduled discharge date. After discharge, Mr. A filed suit to revoke the disciplinary action, claiming that his promotion to private first class and corporal had each been delayed by a month, causing salary losses, and alleging possible future disadvantages in appointment or promotion as a public official.

The court stated, “Mr. A, having already been discharged, has no legal interest in seeking annulment of the disciplinary military education order.” The court found that the disciplinary action does not directly cause adverse effects on Mr. A’s status after discharge. Furthermore, it noted, “Records of disciplinary action taken during military service are not included in externally issued documents, such as the military service certificate,” and added, “There is no law identified that stipulates such conditions to influence civil service eligibility or related matters.”

The court also did not regard the losses from salary and promotion delays as giving rise to a direct legal interest sufficient to maintain a cancellation lawsuit. It stated that the salary for the disciplinary education period was actually paid to Mr. A, and that the difference in pay due to the extended service and delayed promotion constituted only indirect and incidental disadvantages arising under the relevant law. The court further emphasized, “Even if the disciplinary action were to be annulled after discharge, neither the status of a soldier would be reinstated, nor would retroactive promotions be possible.”

The court concluded that, even assuming the merits were to be considered, the disciplinary action itself was justified. It reasoned that Mr. A’s remark in the female officer’s dormitory at night, going beyond the purpose of an official visit by suggesting “let’s hang out together,” constituted an act of disrespect towards a superior and endangered military hierarchy, violating the obligation to maintain dignity. The court added, “A five-day disciplinary education is the lowest level of action among possible penalties, which can be up to 15 days, and cannot be seen as an abuse or departure from discretion.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.