1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff on March 3, 2014 is null and void.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) In order to contribute to the economic and social development of agricultural and fishing villages by implementing a rural development project on January 1, 200, comprehensively managing agricultural infrastructure, and promoting agricultural productivity, the Defendant is a corporation incorporated by integrating the existing Farmland Improvement Cooperatives Federation, Farmland Improvement Cooperatives, and Agricultural Promotion Corporation. 2) On July 20, 1992, the Plaintiff was newly employed on July 20, 199 and was promoted to Grade V on January 1, 199, and the Defendant passed the third grade promotion examination conducted on February 11, 2006, and was promoted to Grade III on March 30, 2006 by the Defendant’s personnel order issued on March 30, 2006.

(B) The part concerning the Plaintiff in the issuance of the above personnel management order is “the instant personnel management order.”

1) On January 23, 2014, the head of the Cheongnam-do Police Agency notified the Defendant of the investigation result that the Plaintiff received examination questions and answers in the promotion examination conducted on February 11, 2006, and provided funds for the examination. As a result of the investigation, 30 remaining 32 employees other than 32 employees whose statute of limitations has lapsed, among the above 62 employees of the Defendant who were revealed to have committed unlawful acts in the promotion examination, were indicted, and the Defendant’s president reported the press about the facts related to the promotion examination. 2) Accordingly, on February 14, 2014, the Defendant’s president demanded the Defendant to make a resolution of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Defendant’s external honorary trend of promotion and the basis of the personnel system based on the illegal promotion to the High Personnel Committee, and the High Personnel Committee for the same year was the same.

2. On February 11, 2006, at the promotion examination conducted by the Plaintiff on February 11, 2006, the Plaintiff resolved on disciplinary action against dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiff passed the examination and answer, and offered money in return (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

3. Accordingly, the defendant revoked the instant personnel order on March 3, 2014 and Article 48 of the Personnel Regulations of the defendant.