Article body
The Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the claim made by military civil servant A, who sought to annul the decision of the National Human Rights Commission. A argued that mandatory camping during outdoor training infringed on their freedom of action while working at the B School Aviation Maintenance Brigade, but the Commission determined that the camping training served legitimate purposes such as national security and dismissed the complaint.
The court supported the Commission's decision, stating that the camping training was based on legal grounds and did not significantly infringe upon A's general freedom of action. It explained that military civil servants, as members of the armed forces alongside soldiers, may have their basic rights restricted due to the necessities of military duties. The court also added that A's claim that the camping training was unrelated to their duties was unfounded, as the training was recognized as educational training aimed at enhancing job performance.
Ultimately, the court rejected A's claims and ruled that the Commission's dismissal decision was not unlawful. This case is interpreted as a reaffirmation of the necessity and legitimacy of training for military civil servants.