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 November 28, 2006, the Plaintiff passed the 48th Judicial Examination, and completed the Judicial Research and Training Institute on January 31, 2009 as 38, and registered as an attorney-at-law belonging to the Seoul Local Bar Association on February 9, 2009.

B. On July 18, 2016, the Korean Bar Association Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Bar Association Disciplinary Committee”) advertised the Plaintiff as “the Plaintiff’s Specialized Attorneys-at-Law (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Bar Association Disciplinary Committee”) on September 11, 2014, without registering the specialized field of bankruptcy law under the Regulations on Specialized Attorneys-at-Laws-at-Laws-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-Laws-at-Laws-at-Laws-Laws-at-Laws-Laws-at-Laws-Laws-at-Laws-Laws-at-Laws-Laws-at-Laws-Laws-at-laws-at-laws-laws-at-laws-laws-laws-

C. On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disciplinary decision, and filed an objection with the Defendant.

On April 3, 2017, the defendant revoked the decision of disciplinary action of the bar association disciplinary committee and made a decision of disciplinary action for six months of suspension from office on the ground that "the fact of disciplinary action is recognized, but it is excessive considering the balance with similar disciplinary cases."

(hereinafter the defendant's decision on disciplinary action is referred to as "the disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s grounds for disciplinary action, 1, 2, and 2 are known to the Plaintiff.