Attorney Park Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Han-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

On October 10, 2017, the defendant revoked one-month suspension disposition against the plaintiff on October 10, 201.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 4 to No. 3, No. 1).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, (b) relevant laws and regulations, and (c) the first ground for disciplinary action, (1) whether to recognize the grounds for disciplinary action, (2) whether to recognize the second ground for disciplinary action, and (3) whether to recognize the second ground for disciplinary action, are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of the parts used or added as follows, and therefore, they shall be quoted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The “I” project “I” up to the “I” project “I” is a project for which domestic largest experts proceeds, and the “J” project” is supported without a public offering, taking into account each special circumstance that it is supported by a similar work that was reflected in the previous budget.

Article 16(2)3 (proviso) of the Subsidy Act provides that "The grounds for disciplinary action shall be acknowledged." The following shall be added to "The reasons are as alleged by the plaintiff." Even if the plaintiff decided to grant "T projects" taking into account the fact that the plaintiff provided similar follow-up projects with respect to the projects reflected in the past budget, the "J" projects shall not be considered as projects implemented by the plaintiff, the purpose of the Subsidy Act, the purpose of promoting appropriate management of subsidy budget such as efficient formulation and implementation of subsidy budget, the structure of Article 16(2) of the Subsidy Act that provides for the principle of public offering, the structure of Article 16(2)3 (proviso) of the Subsidy Act that provides for the principle of public offering, and the possibility of widely recognizing Article 16(2)3 (proviso) of the Subsidy Act that provides for the discretion of the administrative agency, the reasons are limited to those reasons corresponding to subparagraphs 1 and 2 (proviso) of Article 16(2) of the Subsidy Act, so it is reasonable to view that the above reasons alleged by the plaintiff does not appear to constitute the above reasons for disciplinary action of national sports and culture.

3) Whether to recognize the grounds for disciplinary action No. 3

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 18, 28, 29, and 30 (including the number number), Eul evidence Nos. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings:

(1) On March 16, 2017, it is desirable for the Plaintiff to set up the cost of supporting the business of the unemployment team of the budget and fund in relation to the improper support for the establishment of the M Team operation, and to support the establishment of the M Team operation cost. Since H given that the Korea Sports Promotion Foundation ordered the Plaintiff to provide the cost of the M team with business revenues, such as providing the Plaintiff with a subsidy of KRW 5 billion to the M Team and ordering the Plaintiff not to settle the costs of the M Team, it stated that H failed to report other measures.

(2) The Korea Sports Promotion Corporation shall pay expenses for entrusted operation to L who is an entrusted business operator. The specific ratio and amount of entrusted operation shall vary according to the annual sales of voting rights (based on the rate of entrusted operation).

1.3182% to 1.845%) The above Corporation shall provisionally pay the entrusted operation expenses to L and settle them at the end of the year.

(3) At the time, AL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AL”) established and operated a AC Team on Mar. 16, 201, and AD Team on Nov. 15, 201. Since the trustee has changed to L, L is operating the said team. The entrusted business operator bears the operating expenses of AC Team and AD Team from the entrusted operation expenses paid from the National Sports Promotion Foundation.

(4) On December 17, 2015, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism sent to the Korea Sports Promotion Foundation a letter of request for the formation of a team that “The promotion of the project, such as the formation of a team, is actively reviewed as part of a multi-faceted policy plan, such as expansion of the base of the Winter Games, improvement of the sports performance, and preparation of a plan for the follow-up utilization of the stadium.” On the other hand, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism sent a letter of request for cooperation on November 17, 2010 to ACR which was operated by the Korea Sports Promotion Foundation and the entrusted business entity at the time, and thereby, sent a letter of request for the establishment of a AC Team to establish a AC Team.

(5) On November 24, 2015, the National Sports Promotion Foundation established a review of and countermeasures against the establishment of AC Team as a separate settlement item, such as promoting the preservation of expenses through a partial change of the contract (i.e., the implementation of the entrusted detailed implementation clause), and establishing a separate settlement item, and refer to the case of AC Team establishment when formulating the review and countermeasures. The foregoing Corporation presented an opinion that it is possible to revise the total determination of operating expenses and items of expenses when the excess execution expenses occurred from AM (LLC) on May 11, 2016 in relation to the preservation of operating expenses of the MM team. It was possible to revise the terms and conditions of the entrustment contract and the detailed implementation of the entrustment contract without changing the entrustment contract between the general procurement office and L, and that it is possible to revise the terms and conditions of the entrustment contract and the operation expenses of the EM team to make up for the change of the operating expenses of the EM team to the amount of the entrusted operation expenses of the EM team.

(6) The documents prepared by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism on July 19, 2017, stating the direction-setting for responding to the audit results by the Board of Audit and Inspection related to M are included in the scope of entrusted duties under Article 32 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Sports Promotion Act.

(7) On May 2017, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, with respect to the legitimacy of the consignment operation of the M Team, presented opinions that “the operation of the M Team from AE law firm can ultimately expect the public relations effect such as raising national response and awareness about the business of issuing voting rights.” As such, Article 32 Subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Sports Promotion Act (hereinafter “other operation-related business activities, such as public relations of sports events subject to voting for the promotion of sports promotion”), and if it can contribute to enhancing the image of the business of issuing voting rights by executing funds for the purpose of national sports promotion from AF of law firm around July 2017, and thereby contributing to the long-term settlement of the business, it is determined that the operation of the M Team is for the business of issuing voting rights or for the business related thereto, and thus, the request for review to create the M Team cannot be deemed a violation of the law.”

B) Determination

(1) Article 25(1) of the former National Sports Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 13246, Mar. 27, 2015; hereinafter “National Sports Promotion Act”) provides that the Korea Sports Promotion Corporation shall entrust an organization or individual with the issuance of sports promotion betting tickets, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, in order to efficiently conduct a business of issuing sports promotion betting tickets. Accordingly, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Sports Promotion Act provides that where the business of issuing sports promotion betting tickets is entrusted, the sales of sports promotion betting tickets shall be limited to the scope of the entrusted operation, the payment of the refund ( Subparagraph 1), the operation, maintenance and repair of the sales system, the payment of the refund when the sale of sports promotion betting tickets becomes invalid ( Subparagraph 3), and other business related to the operation of sports promotion betting tickets ( Subparagraph 5). Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Sports Promotion Act provides that the items of sports subject to the issuance of sports promotion betting tickets shall be agriculture-gu, gyna, and other golf and field determined by the Defendant.

On the other hand, Article 19(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act provides that the National Sports Promotion Fund shall be established to support facilities costs necessary for the promotion of sports, improvement of the welfare of athletes, fostering of sports organizations, fostering of school sports and workplace sports, fostering of professional human resources for sports, culture and arts, and fostering of weak areas. Article 36(1)2 provides that the National Sports Promotion Fund shall be established with the approval of the defendant in order to commemorate the 24th Seoul Olympic Games and to carry out certain projects such as the creation, operation, and management of the National Sports Promotion Fund for the promotion of national sports and projects incidental thereto.

(2) In light of such provisions and systems of the Enforcement Decree of the National Sports Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, this part of the grounds for disciplinary action are premised on the fact that L, a trustee of the business issuing sports promotion betting tickets, would create a team and support the creative operation expenses at the National Sports Promotion Foundation in violation of Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Sports Promotion Act. However, Article 25(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act and Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act only stipulate the scope of the entrustment of the business issuing sports promotion betting tickets and the entrusted operation thereof. Therefore, even if the creation and operation of the team does not fall under the “other business related to the operation of sports promotion sports, etc.” under Article 32 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Sports Promotion Act and the “other business related to the promotion of sports sports, culture, and arts, etc.,” it may be possible for the National Sports Promotion Fund to permit the entrusted operation of part of the business related thereto based on the National Sports Promotion Ordinance or other statutes.

In addition, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, namely, ① the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism appears to have promoted the creation of a team as part of a multi-faceted policy plan for the successful holding of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games; ② the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism may reasonably determine the amount of entrusted operation expenses within the extent not exceeding 25/100 of the sales amount (Article 28 of the National Sports Promotion Act); the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism may request the Korea Sports Promotion Foundation and L to provide cooperation; ③ the operation expenses of the AC team and the AD team are disbursed from the entrusted operation expenses paid by the Korea Sports Promotion Foundation to L; ④ the operation expenses of the MM team appears to have been spent from the method of ex post facto settlement; ④ the reason for promoting the creation of the MM team is reasonable and reasonable; ② the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism may determine the amount of entrusted operation expenses within the scope not exceeding 25/100 of the sales amount (Article 28 of the National Sports Promotion Act).

4) Whether to recognize the grounds for disciplinary action No. 4

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 13, 6, 16, 2). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 4

D. Whether the disciplinary authority is deviates from or abused

1) Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken is at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure, who is a public official, has considerably lost validity as a result of exercising the authority to take the disciplinary measure, it can be deemed unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, it should be determined that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and clearly deemed unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure, depending on the specific case. Even if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure, it goes against the public interest principle that should exercise the authority to take the disciplinary measure for the public interest, or if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure goes against the principle of proportionality or the standard that generally applied the same degree without a reasonable reason, thereby violating the principle of equality and discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du160.

2) As seen earlier, Article 2(1) [Attachment I] of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1467 of May 30, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "in the case of a violation of good faith obligation," "in the case of a violation of good faith obligation," or "in the case of a loss of rights caused by abuse of authority," "in the case of a bad faith," and "in the case of a past and past," "in the case of a violation of good faith or disturbance of accounting order", "in the case where the degree of corruption is weak and past," and "in the case of a violation of good faith" among "in the case of a violation of duty or accounting order", "in the case of a violation of good faith," the disciplinary committee may make a decision at one step above, which constitutes "in the case of a violation of good faith and order" and "in the case of a violation of the above disciplinary measure."

3) However, despite the circumstances described in the above Paragraph 2 above, the above evidence and the facts or circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of pleading as stated in the evidence No. 16, namely, ① the amount of support reaches approximately KRW 3.44 billion and the third ground for disciplinary action, which appears to be the core ground for disciplinary action in the instant disposition, are not acknowledged. ② With regard to the grounds for disciplinary action Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the plaintiff actively led the above act, not the plaintiff actively led the above act, but he complied with the instruction of his superior. ③ The plaintiff seems to have faithfully worked for the person who was subject to the disciplinary action from 1989 to the instant disposition, and the plaintiff was awarded NN on December 31, 206, and so, it is reasonable to deem that the measure of selecting "the most severe suspension from office among the scope of disciplinary action stipulated in the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree" was unlawful by abusing discretionary power.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just for the conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Mok-si