The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, (1) the Plaintiff, as the Intervenor’s J, was convicted of a fine of KRW 10 million on August 22, 2012 and received a total of KRW 30 million from the contractor’s related person three times from June 22, 2012 to August 24, 2012. (2) The Plaintiff confirmed that he received the Plaintiff’s money on December 2, 2015 by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs; (3) the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor on February 2, 2016; and (4) the Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of taking property in breach of trust on August 17, 2016; and (4) the Intervenor’s personnel committee determined that the Intervenor’s disciplinary action against the Intervenor, which was a public institution under the Office of Government Policy Coordination, was not considerably damaged upon the Intervenor’s request for disciplinary action against the Intervenor’s violation of Article 3 subparag. 16, 2016 (the Intervenor’s disciplinary action).

(Article 40) Recognizing the facts set forth therein.

2. Article 40 of the above personnel regulations of the Intervenor constitutes a provision regarding the statute of limitations on the employer’s exercise of the right to discipline on the ground of the lapse of the period, and the starting point of the statute of limitations on the disciplinary action shall be deemed to be the time when the grounds for the disciplinary action occurred

In addition, if the disciplinary action against the misconduct itself, after the expiration of the period of prescription for the disciplinary action, is considered to have been subject to investigation or to have been reported to the media, it is nothing more than to extend the period of prescription for the misconduct, thereby exercising the right of disciplinary action for a certain period of time.