1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 30, 2004, the Plaintiff was appointed as a Grade 10 Local Agriculture and Forestry Institute, and was transferred to a local agricultural and forestry operator on December 12, 2013, and a local green belt operator on December 19, 2014, and served in the department B of the Green Environment Bureau from January 21, 2015.

B. On July 8, 2016, the Daegu Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided on three months of reduction of salary on the ground that the following acts of the Plaintiff violate Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity) and 55 (Duty of Good Faith) of the Local Public Officials Act. Accordingly, the Defendant, who is the person who has the authority to appoint the Plaintiff, was subject to the disposition of reduction of salary for three months on July 11, 2016.

From December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff abused C by slandering C at least 60 times on various bulletin boards of the Dog-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Office of Administration (hereinafter “Class 1”) (hereinafter “C”); and on November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff insulting C by pointing out C in the Daegu Metropolitan City’s bulletin board of the Nando Office of Administrative Degngu, as “Umar Doh” and insulting C.

(hereinafter referred to as "second act"). (c)

On September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal petition review with the Daegu Metropolitan City appeals review committee to seek mitigation of the above disposition, and the said review committee changed the disposition of salary reduction for three months, which the Defendant made to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2016, into salary reduction for two months.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). 【Disposition of Salary Reduction 2 months reduced or exempted as seen above, the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition was unlawful since the grounds for the instant disposition are not recognized as being subject to the existence of the grounds for disposition. As to the instant disposition 1 act, the Plaintiff only written in writing 20 to 30 times on various bulletin boards of the administrative evasion of Daegu Metropolitan City, Daegu Metropolitan City, but did not written 60 times, and the content did not contain specific facts that could impair C’s reputation.

B. On November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff was engaged in the second act by C.