Court Rules in Favor of Military Judge Advocate Whose Promotion Was Delayed Over Involvement in 'Chae Sang-byeong Suspicious Document'

A military judge advocate whose promotion was put on hold under the allegation of involvement in drafting the so-called Ministry of National Defense "suspicious document" surrounding the death of the late Corporal Chae Su-geun has won an appeal lawsuit.

The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 10 (Presiding Judge Jung Eun-young) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by military judge advocate A against the Minister of National Defense, seeking to cancel the withholding of his promotion appointment.

While working at the Ministry of National Defense, A drafted a report titled "Fact-Checking and Review of Legal Issues" regarding the death of Corporal Chae and reported it to the then-minister.

When the military aide to the Minister of National Defense asked whether the material could be used as an external briefing document, A agreed.

Later, the Ministry of National Defense's Policy Planning Bureau modified and added content to the material to create a document titled "Truth Regarding Controversies over the Marine Corps Casualty Investigation," which was distributed to groups of retired military personnel and others.

The document stated that the rumor regarding former President Yoon Suk Yeol's "outrage" was false.

In January of this year, the Minister of National Defense requested a disciplinary deliberation against A and notified him of the withholding of his promotion appointment.

The Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Act stipulates that promotion appointments must be withheld when disciplinary deliberation is requested on grounds of major disciplinary action.

A filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing, "Because the Minister of National Defense requested disciplinary deliberation for unjust purposes at the demand of lawmakers, the promotion withholding decision based on this is illegal."

The court sided with A, ruling that the Ministry's measure was illegal both procedurally and substantively.

The tribunal pointed out, "Before taking the measure, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the facts causing the measure, the details of the measure, and the legal basis, nor did the defendant provide an opportunity to submit opinions," adding, "It restricted the party's rights and interests without going through prior notification or opinion-hearing procedures."

It also noted that A's actions did not constitute grounds for major disciplinary action.

The tribunal judged, "The grounds for requesting disciplinary deliberation merely state that A agreed to use the material he drafted as an external briefing document, and that content alone is not enough to conclusively determine that the degree of wrongdoing was severe and intentional."

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.