1. On September 19, 2014, the Defendant’s second time against the Plaintiff, the Gyeonggi-do Vice-si in 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Chairperson of the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee for Public Notice of the instant examination shall conduct an open competitive examination for local public officials of Gyeonggi-do in 2014 (the second additional examination for local public officials of 2,000,000,000,000)

(B) publicly announced the following:

The number of persons to be selected in Class 9 B series was eight when the plaintiff applied for, and the details related to the gender equality appointment target are as follows:

(1) The target examination: (ii) the examination unit of which the number of persons to be selected by each appointing agency is at least five: the examination target of which is 30 percent (if the number of persons to be selected by each appointing agency is at least five but less than ten, the minority number shall not be counted; if the number of persons to be selected by each appointing agency is at least ten, the minority number shall be rounded off; if the number of persons to be selected by each gender is at least ten, the number shall be rounded off; if a successful applicant of any gender falls short of the prescribed number of persons to be selected by each appointing agency, the additional pass shall be taken in excess of the original number of persons to be selected by sexual order

(Enive results: Successful marks - 3 points). (b)

(1) On June 21, 2014, the Plaintiff passed the written examination (1 and 2 combined examinations) of this case, and received the “ordinary” rating from the interview conducted for the successful applicants of the written examination.

(2) When the Defendant determined the successful candidates of the written examination in the instant case, the Defendant determined the successful candidates of the written examination as the successful candidates of the written examination, 11, more than 10 persons who are the initial successful candidates of the written examination.

Among them, two men including the plaintiff, nine women, and three male candidates by applying the gender equality recruitment target system (=three persons to pass the written examination (=10 persons to pass the written examination x 30 per cent) - two male candidates) are additionally passed. However, there was no one who has passed the written examination - 3 or more of the applicants who have passed the written examination, and there was no one who has passed the written examination - 3 or more of the applicants.

(3) The defendant is a person who passed the written examination.