Military Employee Who Refused Superior’s Order Citing “Time to Go Home” Wins Reversal of Salary Reduction Penalty

By Juwon Kang, September 12, 2026

Court and Division: Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 12

Presiding Judge: Kang Jae-won

Case Type: Action to revoke disciplinary action

Decision: Plaintiff’s claim upheld

---

Factual Background

Plaintiff A, a civilian employee working within the military (gunmuwon), was instructed by a superior officer to investigate and report on the purpose of an upcoming meeting and which other units would be attending. A refused, stating that it was time to leave for the day and that the task would be handed off to someone else. The unit found that A had violated the duty to obey superior officers’ official orders under the Military Service Framework Act (Gunin Bokmu Gibonbeop) and imposed a disciplinary demotion.

A appealed to the Ministry of National Defense’s Civilian Employee Appeals Review Committee, which reduced the penalty from demotion to a salary reduction (gambong). A then filed an administrative suit challenging even this reduced penalty.

Prior Criminal Proceedings

A had separately faced criminal prosecution for insubordination (hangmyeong) over the same conduct. The criminal court acquitted A, finding that the order in question concerned administrative work unrelated to the imposition of military duties.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

The Seoul Administrative Court ruled in A’s favor, ordering the disciplinary salary reduction be revoked. The court held that for an order to qualify as a superior’s “official duty order” under the Military Service Framework Act, the order must impose a military duty. The instruction given to A, concerning administrative fact-finding about meeting attendees, was unrelated to any military duty and therefore fell outside the scope of orders whose refusal could trigger disciplinary liability under the Act.

Why This Matters

This decision reinforces a narrow reading of what qualifies as a “military duty order” under the Military Service Framework Act, with both the criminal and administrative courts converging on the same limiting principle: routine administrative tasks assigned to civilian military employees, even when directed by a superior, do not automatically carry the force of a military duty order simply because the person issuing it holds military authority. Practitioners advising civilian personnel in military-affiliated positions should note that disciplinary liability for refusing an order turns on the substantive character of the order itself (whether it imposes a military duty) rather than on the hierarchical relationship between the parties or the mere fact that a directive was issued. This distinction may also be relevant in mitigating both criminal insubordination charges and administrative disciplinary actions where the underlying instruction is more properly characterized as routine administrative business.

Article: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260724176400004?input=1195m