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 March 20, 1995, the Plaintiff was first appointed as an administrative assistant, and served as the head of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission from July 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016, and was released from position on April 8, 2016.

B. On September 29, 2016, the Central Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, based on Article 78(1) of the same Act, and accordingly, on October 7, 2016, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

[Grounds for disciplinary action] The Plaintiff, while holding office as the head of the B agency, has frequently carried out sexual farming fences, such as “n't have good marital relations with her husband on the ground of her husband’s Do,” in the president’s room or private occupation, etc. on the day unfolding plane, and from February 25, 2016 to the same year.

3. During the night of October, 201, C and approximately 110 telephone calls (including absence) and text messages using mobile phones have been given and received, and on March 2, 2016, C intended to use them in the president room and use them in accompanying C, and attempted to fit C with Plaintiff’s official residence on February 5, 2016, and have access to the same year;

3. The plaintiff's official residence twice and the same year;

3. 7. There was a fact that the Plaintiff’s official residence provided approximately 3-4 sexual intercourses.

The Plaintiff’s act constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act.

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking mitigation of the instant disposition with the Ministry of Personnel Management, but was dismissed on January 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 11, 12, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s act of irregularities in this case committed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife are threatened, as he intentionally accessed the Plaintiff and succeeded to the Plaintiff, and success in establishing the relationship with the Plaintiff.