2. The plaintiff's remainder.

A. In order to contribute to the economic and social development of rural communities by implementing rural development projects on January 1, 200, comprehensively managing agricultural infrastructure, and promoting agricultural productivity, the Defendant is a corporation incorporated by combining the existing Farmland Improvement Association, the Farmland Improvement Association, and the Agricultural Promotion Corporation.

B. On April 1, 1991, the Plaintiff was newly employed and worked for Grade V as the Federation of Farmland Improvement Associations and was promoted to Grade IV on February 1, 1999. On January 1, 200, the Plaintiff succeeded to Grade IV as the Federation of Farmland Improvement Associations was integrated into the Defendant. After the Defendant passed the promotion examination for Grade III conducted on November 22, 2008, the Defendant was promoted to Grade III on December 29, 201 and served for the Defendant’s branch office B from February 2012 to Grade III on December 29, 2011.

C. On February 3, 2014, the president of the Defendant demanded a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff to the High School Personnel Committee on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 4 (Duty to Observe) of the Rules of Employment and the Article 17 (Restrictions on Offering Money and Valuables, etc.) of the Defendant’s Code of Conduct by providing the Plaintiff with an advance examination issues and answers in the promotion examination for Grade III.

On February 14, 2014, the High School Personnel Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated duties such as statutes, articles of incorporation, and regulations by committing the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”). The media reported the above contents, thereby seriously impairing the Defendant’s honor and dignity, impairing the public service culture, and violated the duty under the good faith principle required between the employer and his employee.

Accordingly, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff on the same day (hereinafter “instant removal”), while the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the three-class employment personnel assignment of the Plaintiff on December 29, 201 (Personnel-4888; hereinafter “Personnel-488”).

① The Plaintiff