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 July 15, 1975, the Plaintiff was appointed as a local public official in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and transferred to Cheongju on June 1, 198. Since being promoted as a local facility official on August 24, 2007, the Plaintiff took overall charge of the work, such as design and construction, of the “C Business” (hereinafter “C Business”), while working as Cheongju-si Waterworks Business Headquarters B from August 26, 2009 to July 15, 2013.

B. On September 16, 2013, the Defendant suspended the Plaintiff from office for one month on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 48 (Duty of Fidelity) of the Local Public Officials Act, as stated in the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant grounds”).

On October 29, 2009, the Plaintiff works as B in charge of the design and construction, etc. of the instant project. On October 29, 2009, the Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the Plaintiff attended the instant project shop design service and the design advisory committee of the “project shop design service” and was aware of the application of D or other patent technology. On April 10, 2012, when the responsible supervisor approved the written review opinion submitted by the responsible supervisor, it was well aware that there was no problem from the responsible supervisor to directly purchase and install the slot collection machine as originally designed by directly stating that “D’s patent right is transferred to E company.” However, even after receiving a report from the subordinate F to change the contents of the patented product into the general product specifications, the Plaintiff prepared and approved the “major equipment purchase report” to exclude the transferred company from the counter-party to a contract with G (hereinafter “G”).

In addition, upon receiving a report from F on May 25, 2012 that E company filed “a civil petition asking whether there exists separate order specifications from the original design specifications”, it is confirmed whether there is a separate order specifications as referred to in the civil petition contents and the original design.