1. The Defendant’s disposition of warning against the Plaintiff on October 19, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a public official belonging to the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and was a member of the D Housing Redevelopment Project Association (hereinafter “instant partnership”).

B. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspending the indictment (hereinafter “instant suspension of indictment”) on the violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on the grounds that “the executive officers of the instant union prepared a settlement agreement to pay the settlement amount with two construction companies, a contractor, only by the board of representatives, without a general meeting’s resolution.” The Defendant was notified of the suspension of indictment by the Ministry of Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office on September 8, 2015.

C. The Defendant determined that there was a cause for disciplinary action under Article 69(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 13292, May 18, 2015; hereinafter “Local Public Officials Act”) in violation of Article 55 of the same Act, and requested a resolution on disciplinary action to the Committee for the former and Nowon-gu Personnel Committee of Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 24, 2015.

On October 19, 2015, the original U.S. personnel committee decided to “influence warning” on October 19, 2015 by stipulating that “the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 69(1)3 of the Local Public Officials Act (a disciplinary action heavier than reprimand) is applicable due to a breach of the duty to maintain dignity under Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act, and that “a reduction under Article 4 of the Rules on the

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Gyeonggi-do Review Committee, and the Gyeonggi-do Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 28, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap-6, Eul-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion was suspended from indictment on the ground that he/she agreed on the amount of settlement beyond his/her authority, and based on this, this case's assertion.