A civilian employee working at a military unit sued, arguing that it was unfair to conduct outdoor bivouac training together because the employee is not a soldier, but lost.
The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 11, presided over by Chief Judge Kim Jun-young, said on the 30th that on June 26 it dismissed a lawsuit filed by a civilian employee A at the Army Aviation Maintenance Brigade seeking to overturn the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Administrative Appeals Committee's dismissal decision against the National Human Rights Commission.
A said that being made to conduct outdoor bivouac training on a soldier's schedule infringed on general freedom of action and filed a petition with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The NHRC dismissed the petition, saying the restriction of basic rights from outdoor bivouac training served legitimate aims such as national security. A objected and asked the NHRC Administrative Appeals Committee to cancel the dismissal decision, but it was dismissed again, and A filed an administrative lawsuit.
During the trial, A argued, "Bivouac training constitutes tactical training unrelated to the job and cannot be deemed based on the Framework Act on Military Service," and said, "It is possible to minimize infringement of basic rights through commute-based training, lodging in a building near the training site, or shift work, but outdoor bivouac training is being forced."
The court said, "There is a need to conduct training in preparation for situations in which, during war, a civilian employee's duties must be performed at night or outside the office," and added, "Within the scope related to a civilian employee's duties, outdoor bivouac training can also be viewed as part of a civilian employee's education and training."
It further found, "The public interest of national security and the like sought through bivouac training cannot be said to be smaller than the disadvantages to the plaintiff, such as restrictions on general freedom of action."