1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff served from August 1, 2008 to December 31, 2011 as C military planning and audit office and planning and legal affairs officer, and currently served as C military D Museum operation officer (local administrative officer).

B. On May 22, 2013 through June 21, 2013, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an audit of “E Urban Planning Road Maintenance Project” (hereinafter “instant project”), and requested the Defendant to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and C military construction and public officials F, G, and H (hereinafter “F, etc.”).

The act of misconduct requested by the Board of Audit and Inspection is that F et al. did not abide by the design change procedure, but changed the location of the retaining wall, installed a toilet and sewage septic tank in addition, and the plaintiff suffered losses from F et al. and made profits from the construction of the plaintiff's gate.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant misconduct”). C.

On February 11, 2014, the Defendant requested the Standing Committee on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 55 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the Local Public Officials Act by the instant wrongful act. On April 14, 2014, the Standing Committee on the ground that the instant wrongful act was in violation of Article 48 (Duty of Fidelity) of the Local Public Officials Act (hereinafter “C Military Disciplinary Rule”), the Defendant made a decision on one-month suspension from office against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 2 (1) [Attachment 1] of the Regulations on the Determination of Disciplinary Action against Local Public Officials of the C Military (hereinafter “C Military Disciplinary Rule”).

Accordingly, on April 28, 2014, the Defendant rendered a one-month disposition of suspension from office against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review on May 15, 2014, but the Gyeongbuk-do Local Appeals Review Committee decided to dismiss the petition on June 23, 2014.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 to F. F.