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

Plaintiff

A was appointed as an administrative officer on May 4, 1987, and was promoted to a senior public official in general service on December 31, 2009, and served as a senior public official in general service from March 10, 2015 to the Korea Customs Service C's Articles of Incorporation.

Plaintiff

B was appointed as a tax office on May 28, 1984, and was promoted to an administrative officer on February 10, 2010, and on July 1, 2015, the Korea Customs Service D head of Busan Customs office was working on July 1, 2015.

Plaintiff

On January 14, 2016, A received entertainment of KRW 330,00 won by having three persons, together with the Plaintiff B, bear the alcohol value and accommodation costs of the drinking 1 million which is to be jointly borne by the Korea Customs Service and the head of the F Department D of the Busan Customs Department, with the Plaintiff B on January 14, 2016. On January 14, 2016, A did not enter the official status, such as annual leave, even though he/she had worked in the office building of the Korea Customs Service on January 14, 2016. Despite the Prime Minister’s special direction and the direction of the establishment of the working discipline for public officials and public officials in connection with the fourth nuclear experiment of North Korea, A was inappropriate, such as having him/her sit in with the above E and female loan from around 00:30 on January 14, 2016 to 01:30 on January 14, 2016.

Plaintiff

B, on January 14, 2016, at the same time, offered entertainment of approximately KRW 660,000 to E and the Plaintiff at the expense of a total of KRW 1 million, and despite the Prime Minister’s special instruction and thorough direction of establishing a public official service period in relation to the fourth nuclear experiment in North Korea, there was an inappropriate drinking place, such as holding the above E and female contact loans from around 00:30 on January 14, 2016 to 01:30 on January 14, 2016, despite the Prime Minister’s direction and thorough direction of establishing a public official service period.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On March 31, 2016, the Defendant requested the Central Disciplinary Committee to make a resolution on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs as above.

The Central Disciplinary Committee against the plaintiffs on June 17, 2016 on the grounds that they violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Good Faith), 58 (Prohibition of Deserting Office), 61 (Duty of Integrity), and 63 (Duty of Integrity) of the State Public Officials Act.