The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Case history

A. The Defendant is a local government that establishes and operates the F Promotion Agency (the name was changed to the “A Center” on June 1, 2020) pursuant to Article 18 of the E Creation Ordinance (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

B. On April 3, 2020, the Defendant announced the employment of the Director General of the G Promotion Group.

On May 1, 2020, the Plaintiff subscribed and commissioned the head of the instant center from the Defendant as the head of the instant center (from May 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020).

(hereinafter “instant commission act”). C.

On August 27, 2020, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the dismissal of the following contents:

(hereinafter “Dismissal of this case”). The Mayor appointed an external expert (the head of the Center) with the aim of designating a statutory cultural city pursuant to the E Creation Ordinance, but it is difficult to achieve the goals due to the poor performance of the cultural urban project.

Pursuant to Article 18(3) of the E-Development Ordinance, the Director of the Center shall be notified that he/she was dismissed as follows:

Date of dismissal: August 31, 2020

The reason for dismissal ① The designation of a cultural city due to lack of role and lack of expertise of the head of the center ② Operation solely with a specific connection center of the head of the center when inviting a cultural city expert consultant. ③ The individual project (H, I,J, etc.) shall expand citizen opinions as a project. However, it is insufficient to cope with changes in the business direction of the Culture, Sports and Tourism, based on the agency plan without submitting Gad and direction. ④ The project progress in accordance with the plan of the agency without submitting Gad and direction. Rather, it does not accept the consultation rate of opinion for the change in the business direction of the Culture, Sports and Tourism, and instead does not accept the consultation rate of opinion for direct authority abuse and intimidation (public opinion and public opinion) [based on recognition] the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9 (including a serial number

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant unilaterally dismissed the Plaintiff without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to vindicate before the dismissal of the instant case.

(b).