1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The term "the defendant's suspension from office on June 20, 2016 against the plaintiff is three months.

1. The basic facts;

2. The plaintiff's assertion;

3. The grounds for this part of the judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety are as follows: (a) the “Regulations on the Management of Research and Development Projects under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport” was wholly amended by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 788 on December 14, 2016, other than adding “(amended by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Directive No. 459, Dec. 2, 2014)” after the 15th seventh of the judgment of the first instance court; and (b) the location of the

The decision below is based on the provision at the time of the instant case.

Since the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article

4. Judgment on the claim to nullify the invalidity

A. On the following grounds, the grounds for violation of Article 1 may be recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, but the remainder of such grounds shall not be recognized.

1) The reasoning for this part of the court’s recognition of the ground for violation of Article 1 is the same as the statement from the 8th to the 9th 15th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th 15 of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following details after the second th th 15th th th th th th th th th th 15 of the judgment

The Plaintiff did not comply with such general work process and demanded a specific company to be selected as a joint research institution in a private way only before the selection of a joint research institute or submission of a research and development plan by the main research institute.

① While H as “the top line instructions,” the Plaintiff’s instructions were sent to I, who is the head of the instant research project group (the supervising research group) to which the Plaintiff belongs, and I was exercising the influence of the higher supervisory body, and ② the managing research institute’s authority to select a joint research institute, which is the main research institute, may be guaranteed to a certain extent.