2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. As a part of the special inspection activities conducted by the autonomous Gu in order to establish a public office in preparation for the explanation period in 2012, the lecture inspection team belonging to Defendant B was assigned to the audit officer belonging to the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency of the agency.

B. Around February 2012, based on the above findings, the head of D took measures to refer the aforementioned street cleaners to the Management Committee on the ground that they received money from private sector in violation of Article 18 (Prohibited Acts) of the "Employment and Work Regulations" against the aforementioned street cleaners, and on the ground that they neglected the management and supervision of the aforementioned street cleaners with respect to the plaintiff who is the head of the cleaning administration division of the D office, the head of D office took measures of caution (hereinafter "the instant disciplinary action").

C. Even around April 2013, the Han River Inspection Team, which belongs to Defendant B’s viewing, discovered the scene where the construction of the D Office and public officials under its jurisdiction receive money from the employees of the architect office and reported it to the police. The fact of the discovery was reported to the media around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, Gap 3, and Eul 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant B Si is conducting regular cancer inspection to the public officials and employees of the Gu office of the basic local government including D districts. The above inspection act is illegal in violation of the right of local autonomy of D districts and there is no legal ground for private inspection. The defendant C, the market, knowing that it is illegal, has abused its authority to order the employees of B viewing investigation and the lecture inspection team belonging to the Gu office, and even during the inspection process, the defendant B, while treating all public officials belonging to the Gu office as potential criminals, shall be constantly supervised and supervised.