2. The Defendant’s fire officials on September 19, 2016 against the Plaintiff on September 2016.

A. On June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the first-aid and emergency career competition field of the Gangwon-do Fire Officials Employment Examination (hereinafter “instant Examination”) conducted by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant Examination”) and passed the final examination on June 28, 2016.

7.1. Completion of registration of candidates for employment.

B. On September 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the final successful candidate (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to seven (7) days of the suspension of attendance at the former employment agency.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on June 23, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense argues that since the plaintiff's previous employment agency was disqualified from appointment because it constitutes a person who was subject to a disciplinary action higher than salary reduction (seven days of suspension of absence), the pass disposition against the plaintiff is null and void as a matter of course. The defendant's disposition against the plaintiff is merely an "notification of fact" and thus, it is not a disposition subject to appeal.

On the other hand, the plaintiff obtained the qualification to be appointed as a fire-fighting officer by completing the registration of a candidate for appointment after being notified of the defendant's appointment prior to his appointment. The disposition of this case was deprived of the qualification due to the disposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is subject to appeal litigation due to the act that causes a direct change in the

Therefore, the first accused's defense on different premise is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was subject to seven days of attendance suspension at B hospital prior to the Plaintiff’s application for the instant examination, the Plaintiff had already been subject to a reprimand prior to the instant disposition, there was no ground for disposition.