1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Pursuant to Article 17(1)1 and (8) of the Public Service Ethics Act and Article 33(1)1 and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act, the Minister of Personnel Management publicly announced a profit-making private enterprise, etc. subject to employment restriction, which is a retired public official, as applicable to the year 2017 pursuant to Article 17(1)1 and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act, to B (hereinafter “instant public notice”), and the subject C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) was included (hereinafter “C”).

B. D, on June 30, 2017, retired from office as the director of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport E national land management office (class VI facilities) and employed as the vice president of C on July 1, 2017.

C. The Government Public Service Ethics Committee deemed that D’s employment in C is subject to employment restrictions under Article 17 of the Public Service Ethics Act, and requested the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to release D from employment on January 30, 2018 pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Public Service Ethics Act.

On February 7, 2018, the defendant delegated his/her authority by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport requested the plaintiff who is the representative director C pursuant to Article 19 (1) of the Public Service Ethics Act to dismiss D and notify the result thereof.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, Article 17 of the Public Service Ethics Act and Article 33(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate “private enterprises with capital of at least one billion won and with annual turnover of at least ten billion won” as employment-restricted institutions. Since C, around July 1, 2016, reduced its capital from KRW 1.5 billion to KRW 90 million and employment of D does not constitute employment-restricted institutions at July 1, 2017, it asserts that the instant disposition on different premise is unlawful.

In this regard, the defendant's disadvantage that the plaintiff would suffer due to the disposition of this case is a factual and economic interest.