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

A. The Plaintiff is a public official of Seoul Special Metropolitan City who was appointed on May 20, 1991 and was promoted to a local administrative branch on March 12, 2012.

The Plaintiff served in Section B from July 13, 2015 to January 17, 2016, from January 18, 2016 to January 15, 2017, and served in Section C from January 16, 2017.

B. On May 14, 2018, the First Personnel Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “E”) rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s violation of Article 53(1)1 of the Local Public Officials Act by deeming that “the Plaintiff received from the F representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) and the G General Director one gambling house equivalent to KRW 100,000,000,000 as KRW 49,000 each on September 23, 2016 and August 31, 2016, two soldiers were provided with meals equivalent to KRW 20,000 at H restaurant.” The Plaintiff was provided with meals from the G General Director on July 25, 2015, based on Article 53(1), Article 16(1), Article 9(1), Article 16(2), Article 9-2(1), Article 9(1), and (30 of the Local Public Officials Act (hereinafter referred to as “Public Officials Act”).

Accordingly, on June 8, 2018, the defendant issued a disposition to impose one month of suspension from office and three times of disciplinary charges on the plaintiff.

C. On September 13, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Appeal Committee, and the said Committee changed the disciplinary action for one month of suspension from office and the disposition of imposing three times disciplinary additional charges for the reason that disciplinary action is excessive, even though it is deemed that disciplinary action is disciplinary, and accordingly, changed the disciplinary action for the Plaintiff and the disposition of imposing three times disciplinary charges.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” in total, including three months of the reduction of salary and three times of the surcharge for disciplinary action, which has been mitigated, hereinafter the same shall apply). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3 and 8 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful