징계처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law at the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Bar Association on February 3, 2001 and is working in Seocho-gu as an attorney-at-law.
B. On September 26, 2016, the Korean Bar Disciplinary Committee imposed an administrative fine of two million won on the Plaintiff based on Article 91(2), Article 23(2), and Article 25 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 9 subparag. 3, and Article 44(5) of the Regulations on the Disciplinary Action of Attorneys-at-Law on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 7(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act on the ground that he/she was in violation of Article 91(2), Article 23(2), and Article 25 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 9 subparag. 3, and Article 44(5) of the Rules of the Korean Bar Association.
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). The said commission deemed that the Plaintiff was unaware of the regulations on the advertisement of attorney-at-law or the regulations on the registration of the professional field of attorney-at-law did not affect the recognition of facts suspected of disciplinary action. However, prior to the request for the commencement of disciplinary action, the advertising part at issue was deleted as favorable factors in the determination of disciplinary action.
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action and filed an objection against the Defendant. On December 22, 2017, the Defendant recognized the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, and rendered a decision dismissing the objection on the grounds that the instant disciplinary action did not constitute an unlawful act of deviating from or abusing the right to discretion in disciplinary action.
(hereinafter “instant decision”) D.
The Korean Bar Association Disciplinary Committee has been subject to a disciplinary measure of KRW 2 million from the administrative fine of KRW 2 million on the ground that the Korean Bar Association displayed a “professional” mark to other attorneys who are not the Plaintiff without registering a specialized field.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), respectively.