1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was appointed as the head of the office in the five North Korean Dos B (hereinafter “head of the office”).

B. The head of the office of the Si/Do office in the five North Korean Dos held on September 14, 2017, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated any of subparagraphs 1 through 4 of Article 9-4 of the Rules on the Operation of the City/Do Office in the five North Korean Dos (hereinafter “Rules on Five North Korean Dos”) by committing the following acts (hereinafter “instant misconduct”):

In violation of the relevant statutes and regulations (violation of Article 9-4 subparagraph 1 of the Rules on Five North Korean Dos) - The Plaintiff provided 11 persons, including five North Korean cities, etc. with gifts equivalent to KRW 15,000 per capita on January 25, 2017, and violated Article 8 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

- The Plaintiff violated Article 11 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Articles 6 and 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by failing to accept the information disclosure request, failing to place the information disclosure processing ledger, failing to request the information disclosure and delaying processing.

- The Plaintiff violated Article 19 of the Local Subsidy Management Ordinance, Article 19 of the Local Subsidy Management Standards, the local government expenditure budget execution standards, and the conditions of granting City subsidies by improper execution of the budget while conducting accounting affairs.

The violation of official duties and negligence of duties (violation of Article 9-4 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on Five North Korean Dos) - The plaintiff refused to sign the written confirmation on the matters pointed out in the guidance inspection.

- The Plaintiff failed to submit or delayed the 11 supplementary requirements for measures to be taken for the matters pointed out in the guidance inspection, monthly performance, and measures taken.

Failure to work (in violation of Article 9-4 subparagraph 3 of the Rules on Five North Korean Dos) - The plaintiff has conducted flexible work without obtaining prior permission.

- The Plaintiff entered the business trip and the reasons for outing in the work status book in an ambiguous manner.

The injury to dignity of the head of the office (the violation of Article 9-4 subparagraph 4 of the Rules on Five North Korean Dos) - The plaintiff shall submit it after guidance and inspection.