1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on the claim for the payment of KRW 10,000,000 and damages for delay shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of compensation with the Defendant at the time of submitting the “report on the irregularities of public officials” stating that “I would like to request compensation pursuant to Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Ordinance on the Payment of Compensation for Irregularities in the Doldong-gun (hereinafter “the Ordinance”).” (hereinafter “the instant report”).

B. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application based on Article 9 subparag. 3 of the instant Ordinance on the ground that the instant report was already recognized by a judicial institution or an administrative agency, etc., and the investigation or investigation was completed or disciplinary proceedings were completed.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition】 【Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. We examine ex officio whether the part of the claim for the payment of compensation is legitimate. The plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 10 million and delay damages against the defendant while seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case. However, such performance lawsuit is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act, which is a type of lawsuit seeking to delete the obligation to the court to take such administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). Of the lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim for the payment of compensation is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that from March 2013, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition regarding the pilot project to utilize the by-products from the luxan-gun and the Gyeonggi-do Audit Office for the agricultural product by-products of the luxan-gun.

On June 2014, the defendant disciplinary action against the relevant public officials, and recovered the subsidy of KRW 146 million paid to the above pilot project.

The plaintiff's report is subject to subparagraph 3 of Article 3 of the Ordinance of this case.