1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a local fire-fighting official who was appointed as a fire-fighter on August 5, 1991 and was promoted as a local fire-fighting assistant on November 4, 1994, and as a local fire-fighting assistant on December 21, 2002, and was promoted to the 119 Safety Center from February 11, 201 to December 5, 201, and was promoted to the local fire-fighting assistant on March 5, 201.

On March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff had undergone a non-regular inspection of the fire-fighting equipment under the control of the National Emergency Management Agency. After the inspection, B submitted a certificate to the National Emergency Management Agency to acknowledge that the operator's operation of equipment and the state of learning on the day is very insufficient, and if he collected the statement of the employees, he/she may know the names and uses of the essential and basic pumps and various valves in operating the fire-fighting equipment, and if he/she fails to understand the structure of the fire-fighting pumps, he/she is considerably lacking the first aid capacity of the fire-fighting pumps, which is considerably lacking in the first aid capacity of the fire-fighting pumps, and thereby neglected his/her duty to perform his/her duty to the serious degree as a fire-fighting vehicle operator, the personnel measures taken by the National Emergency Management Agency, instructions of the Fire-Fighting Headquarters related to the fire-fighting Safety Headquarters, instructions of reprimands related to the fire-fighting safety headquarters, etc., and the failure or failure inspection even if it damages the dignity of a fire-fighting officer, which constitutes a violation of the grounds of Article 48 (Duty).

B. On May 30, 2012, the Daegu Water-Fighting Department chief requested the Fire-Fighting Board Disciplinary Committee to take a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On May 31, 2012, the instant disciplinary action constituted a violation of Articles 48 (Duty of Good Faith) and 55 (Duty of Good Faith) of the Local Public Officials Act, and thus, issued reprimand against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review, but Daegu Metropolitan City.