1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 10, 1987, the Plaintiff is a public official who was appointed to the City of Ulsan-do Gun Office and served as the head of the team in the building and team of the B-Gun from July 1, 2007, the future vision promotion group project and the team leader of the B-Gun future vision promotion group on August 10, 201, and the director of the building division of the B-Gun Office on July 10, 2013.

B. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) following a resolution by the committee of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Personnel Committee for Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”); on October 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 90,576,670 equivalent to four times the amount subject to disciplinary action, which is the amount subject to disciplinary action, as surcharges (hereinafter “the first additional disposition”).

According to Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity) and 53 (Duty of Integrity) of the Local Public Officials Act, “public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, perform their duties faithfully, and shall not directly or indirectly give or receive any reward, donation, or entertainment in connection with their duties.” However, the Plaintiff was sentenced to suspension of execution of imprisonment of three years and six months from the Ulsan District Court for a year and six months from the date of being sentenced to a penalty of KRW 22,64,167, and a penalty of KRW 222,64,64,167, by having the total six persons, such as the head of the public facility team and the head of the construction division, work for the policy project, and the head of the public facility team, and the head of the construction division, enter into a total of seven insurance policies for the principal (C) who performs an insurance solicitor, such as duties-related business, and

C. On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions and filed a petition review with the Ulsan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission. On December 12, 2014, the said commission rendered a decision of dismissal on the part demanding the revocation of the instant dismissal disposition, and on the part demanding the revocation of the instant dismissal, a decision of dismissal surcharge was made to reduce the amount from 4 to 3 times as to the portion seeking the revocation of the instant first dismissal disposition.

On December 16, 2014, the defendant changed the surcharge to 67,932,50 won against the plaintiff according to the decision of the appeals review committee of Ulsan Metropolitan City.