A. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) removed the Plaintiff from office as a ground for disciplinary action specified in the attached list; and (b) imposed a surcharge of KRW 3 million on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The plaintiff filed a petition review with the appeals review committee, but was dismissed on June 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 6

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) as shown in the Attachment of the relevant statutes;

(b) In addition to each of the statements set forth in sub-paragraphs 1 to 31 of the evidence, the witness C and D’s respective statements, the whole purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged as follows:

1) From March 16, 2009 to June 28, 2010, the Plaintiff served as the actual cooperation officer, and received instructions or guidelines for personnel affairs from the president. The Plaintiff demanded the head of the personnel department E and the head of the team to inspect the personnel data upon obtaining the authority to inspect the personnel data, and demanded the above F and E to send all reports prepared at the team before obtaining approval from the president, and demanded that the Plaintiff receive the personnel data, etc. from the team employees by administrative mail and revise the received personnel proposal. In addition, on October 2010, the Plaintiff was assigned 00 G, H, I, K to the head of the team, and the head of the team and the head of the team, and demanded that the Plaintiff receive the personnel data, etc. from the team employees by 00 years from March 16, 2009 to June 28, 2010, 000 G, 10 years from 0 years from 20 years from 20 years from 20 years from 30.

However, among the above disciplinary reasons, it has already been done in 2008.