1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply):

The plaintiff is a local public enterprise that employs 170 full-time workers and finds and carries out public works and various urban development projects in accordance with the policy of Kimpo-si.

B. Dog Self- Experience Center (hereinafter “Dog Self- Experience Center”) established on August 26, 2002 by Dog Self- Experience Center (hereinafter “Dog Self- Experience Center”) and operated as an instructor for self-experience.

B. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff’s personnel committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor by applying Article 6(Duty of Good Faith), Articles 8(Duty of Maintain Dignity), 9-2(Duty of Maintain Dignity), 14(Restrictions on Acceptance of Money and Valuables, etc.) and Article 25(Prohibited Money and Valuables, etc.) of the Employment Regulations, on the ground that “The Intervenor neglected to settle and examine the prices of goods, and (2) received money and valuables, such as cash 80,000 won from his/her students, who are related to his/her duties, and 9,10,000 won from his/her traders, and (3) made an improper payment of temporary retirement benefits, and (4) production of souvenirs without permission.”

On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of dismissal in accordance with the above resolution of the personnel committee, and the Intervenor appealed against this and filed a request for a retrial with the personnel committee.

On August 14, 2012, the personnel committee decided to reduce the Intervenor’s dismissal to three months of suspension from office, and the Plaintiff notified this on August 16, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant suspension disposition”). The Sheshed the instant suspension disposition is unfair.