2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to verify whether his employment as outside directors of the CJwawa Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) under the Public Service Ethics Act was restricted. Accordingly, on March 20, 2015, the Defendant is closely related to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2015, Article 17(2)8 of the former Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 12946, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Public Service Ethics Act”), Article 32(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26179, Mar. 30, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act”).

' by reason that the employment restriction was decided.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

A) In full view of the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the entire argument, the other party who entered into the instant disposition with the non-party company as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, is not B University-related corporations, which are not B University-related corporations, and these corporations select an entrusted meal service company through open tendering, and there is no audit of these corporations, B University-related corporations, etc., the disposition of this case was unlawful, since there is no close relation to the affairs of standing auditors of B University-related corporations and the non-party company as stipulated in Article 32(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act.

As shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes and regulations.

Judgment

The Public Service Ethics Act is to consider when determining business relevance with private enterprises, etc. whose employment is restricted.