1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of performing non-profit public affairs such as grading livestock products under Article 36 of the Livestock Industry Act, and is designated as a public institution by the public notice of the Minister of Strategy and Finance under Article 6

The plaintiff is a worker who was employed by the defendant on February 1, 1993 and worked as B.

B. On January 5, 2018, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was dismissed on November 18, 2017, on the ground that “the Plaintiff was in violation of Article 8 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the Rules on the Service of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant misconduct”). The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was in violation of the duty to maintain dignity”) under Article 8 (hereinafter “the instant misconduct”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “Dismissal of January 5, 2018”) shall be the case’s dismissal.

On April 26, 2018, the Plaintiff was indicted on charges of quasi-indecent act by compulsion, and was sentenced to imprisonment for ten months and two years of suspended execution by the Seoul Northern District Court. The above judgment became final and conclusive as it did not appeal by the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor.

Criteria for disciplinary action determined by the defendant's disciplinary regulations are as follows:

If the degree of misconduct and the degree of misconduct in the category of negligence are severe and intentional, the degree of misconduct is severe, gross negligence, or the degree of misconduct is weak and intentional, and if the degree of misconduct is weak and minor negligence is minor and minor negligence, the degree of misconduct is minor and minor negligence, the violation of the duty to maintain dignity, and the reduction of salary or reprimand (applicable: there is no dispute over grounds for recognition: Gap's evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole arguments).

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is criminal.