1. The Defendant’s reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on June 9, 2017 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff is appointed as an expert of the Gyeonggi-do Disaster and Safety Headquarters B division, and is in charge of “Formulation of a control plan for the field of construction of persons who violated the disaster and safety management” and “control affairs of the facilities subject to specific management at vulnerable times”, etc.

B. As part of an emergency safety inspection for disaster prevention under Article 30 of the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety, the Plaintiff formulated a plan to control the actual condition of safety management of large-scale sales facilities for disaster prevention against snow lighting in 2017 (hereinafter “instant control plan”).

Facilities subject to inspection include fishery product Dongs, fishery products two Dongs, and auction Dongs within the jurisdiction of the C market (hereinafter referred to as the "market of this case"), but not Cheong physical Dongs.

C. As a member of the inspection team, the Plaintiff conducted an inspection for the control of the actual condition of safety management of the instant market from January 17, 2017 to January 15:00 according to the instant control plan. D.

On May 8, 2017, the Minister of the Interior requested the Defendant to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act by neglecting to inspect and take measures against overall disaster risk factors, such as not inspecting partitions installed without permission on the rear side and side of the instant market. On May 16, 2017, the Defendant demanded the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee to take disciplinary action against the act of inspection and omission of measures.

E. On June 9, 2017, according to the resolution of the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee, the Defendant appears to have written statements on grounds of disciplinary action, etc. under Article 69(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act (Evidence A-1-1), “Article 69(1)3 of the Local Public Officials Act” as “Article 69(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act.”

the Plaintiff’s reprimanded the Plaintiff.

(F) The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action on June 20, 2017.