1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Disciplinary action B against a local construction engineer B who ordered the circumstances of the disposition shall be decided by a reprimand under Article 69(1)1 and 2 of the Local Public Officials Act;

Reasons

1. The ground for a request for a disciplinary decision is that local construction engineer B works as housing and C from April 1, 197 to the present date. On September 19, 1977, a construction permit area of 11,149.25 square meters is 10,01.24 square meters, which is 11,149.25 square meters and constructed 685.44 square meters, but neglected it without the approval procedure, and it is not controlled even though it was used without the approval procedure. In obtaining the approval of use on September 26, 197, it is not possible to approve it in accordance with the proviso of Article 3(3) of the Building Act and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.

2. In light of the fact that the construction permission work is divided in the building community and the interim and completion inspection is carried out in the facility system and the regulation of unauthorized building is divided in the facility system, the object of the regulation of household use prior to the permission is considered to be the object of the regulation of unauthorized building use.

3. Accordingly, the above conduct violated the duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act, and is decided as ordered by the disposition of misconduct falling under Article 69 (1) 1 and 2 of the Local Public Officials Act.

B On August 22, 1967, a local public official was appointed as a local public official for a local architect, and worked in the city, Do, Ulsan-do, in terms of the administrative district at that time. Around February 9, 1979, the personnel committee in Ulsan-si was subject to a disciplinary resolution for reprimand as follows, and the Ulsan-si was subject to a disciplinary measure for reprimand on February 21, 1979 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”). Accordingly, on February 21, 1979, the Ulsan-si was subject to a disciplinary measure for reprimand.

B. B, around 06:00 on February 21, 1979, died by suffering three-dimensional images from the dwelling place.

C. The plaintiff is the spouse of B, and the plaintiff was subject to the illegal disciplinary action of B, and died in a molecule.