1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision or addition as follows.

The judgment of the court of first instance in three pages 4 of the first instance is revised as follows: "(The Daejeon District Court Decision 2014No2262 decided May 23, 2015) was sentenced to the sentence (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014No2262 decided May 23, 2015)" (The appeal of the prosecutor was dismissed on May 15, 2015), and "Nos. 1 through 6, 23" in six pages 1 through 6, 23, 31, 32 of the same subparagraph shall be amended as "Nos. 1 through 6, 32 of the A.

At the fourth bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the plaintiff acknowledges the fact that the plaintiff committed the act of misconduct in this case” is corrected to read “the plaintiff recognized the fact that he passed the examination after receiving the defendant’s three-class promotion examination answer from B in 2010.”

The portions from five to six degrees at the bottom of five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revised as follows:

Article 52 of the Act on the Personnel Management of the Defendant provides that the period of extinctive prescription shall be five years for acceptance of money, valuables, and entertainment, and two years for the remainder. The Plaintiff merely lent KRW 6 million to B, but did not pay the above money in return for an illegal application. Therefore, there is no room for applying the five-year period of extinctive prescription to the Plaintiff.

Even if not,

Even if the above provision refers to the receipt of money and valuables by an employee of the defendant, not only the provision of money and valuables, but also the relation to duties should be recognized. Since B takes charge of duties unrelated to the defendant's promotion and internal employment examination, the period of prescription against the plaintiff is two years.

Therefore, the removal of this case from November 27, 201, which is the date of the Plaintiff’s request for examination, which is the starting point of the statute of limitations for disciplinary action.