The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Among the total cost of litigation, it arises between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of the disposition (based on recognition), entry of Gap 1-9, Eul 1-11, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. On November 3, 2014, the chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the chief prosecutor”) filed an application for commencement of disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs on the grounds as stated in [Attachment 1]’s grounds for filing an application for commencement of disciplinary action with the president of the Korean Bar Association (hereinafter “the president of the Korean Bar Association”).

(hereinafter referred to as “application for the commencement of the instant disciplinary action”). (b)

The president of the Defense Association, on January 27, 2015 (attached Form 2), made a decision to dismiss the application for the commencement of the instant disciplinary action on the same ground as the stated "reasons for the dismissal of the commencement of disciplinary action".

C. On February 13, 2015, the chief prosecutor appealeded against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor dismissed each of the above objections on March 30, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “decision to dismiss each of the instant objections”). D.

On May 11, 2015, the chief prosecutor notified the decision to dismiss each of the instant objections on April 14, 2015, and filed an objection against the Defendant on May 11, 2015 (No. 2015-2 against the Plaintiff, and No. 2015-3 against the Plaintiff B). On July 2, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to “a decision to dismiss each of the instant objections and to commence disciplinary proceedings against the Plaintiffs” (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant decisions”).

E. On July 16, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs a public notice of the period of deliberation on disciplinary action by November 11, 2015, respectively. On September 21, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs a public notice stating that “if there exists any submission of a written opinion or reference documents to hold the Attorney Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Justice, the submission of a written opinion or reference documents to the Plaintiffs,” accompanied by the written decision of this case and a certified copy of each decision of extension of the period of deliberation.” The said document sent to the Plaintiffs around that time.

2. Relevant statutes (attached Form 3).