1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the cost of participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor was established pursuant to the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Financial Services Commission on January 1, 1999, and employed 1,852 full-time workers from 38, as Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and performed the inspection and sanctions on the business and property of financial institutions. The Plaintiff joined the Intervenor on February 2, 1982 and was in charge of various inspection, civil petition treatment, and security affairs of financial institutions until May 2, 2013.

Unfair loans and preferential interest rates on the basis of one solicitation of the provisions related to the violation of the reason;

1. Hyundai Swiss Bank ( July 2009) 20,000 won;

2. Treatment Capitals ( October 2009) 20,000 won;

3. Our Capital ( December 2009) 20,000 won;

4. Alleybre savings bank ( June 2010), 20,000 won;

5. Electric Savings Bank ( August 2010), 20,000 won;

6. Asset savings banks ( October 2010), 20,000 won;

7. S&T savings banks (on July 2011), 20,000 won;

8. Requests for reduction in the interest rate on cash services and credit cards to Hyundai Card Companies on August 8, 2011 and July 2012, 2012

1. Integrity obligation (Article 35 (1) of the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Financial Services Commission and Article 14 (1) of the Articles of Incorporation of the Financial Supervisory Service);

2. Prohibition of moving-in and prohibition of exercising undue pressure (Articles 9-3 (1) and 10 of the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees of the Financial Supervisory Service);

3. Obligation to prohibit excessive loans (Article 16 (3) of the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees of the Financial Supervisory Service).

4. Obligations to observe Acts and subordinate statutes and to maintain dignity (Articles 3 and 7 of the Rules of Employment);

5. Refusal of inspection and investigation, interference (Article 33 (2) 1 and 2 of the Audit and Inspection Duties Regulations) 2), omission of the procedures for the examination of loans, and direction to destroy credit documents) refusal of inspection and investigation into a violation of an excessive loan area, and exclusion from 4 inspection and investigation into a violation of an excessive loan area and treatment of

1. New loans ( October 2009) 20 million won;

2. Extension of loan ( April 2011) 30,000 won;

3. Extension of loan ( July 2012) 20,000 won;

B. On May 3, 2013, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant disciplinary dismissal”). C.

On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disciplinary dismissal is unfair.