1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

. On July 29, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the demand for the above disciplinary measure.

M is likely to incur a loss of KRW 501,00,000 due to neglecting the collection of claims, such as destroying the report of this case without reporting it, and cancellation of the right to collateral security for E, etc., which constitutes “refiscing the side of the follow-up management of loans and the destruction of official documents.” As such, the person concerned is reprimanded according to the disciplinary action requirements, accompanied by the result, and reported and reported the amount of loss as soon as possible, and the time is winded. [The requirements for disciplinary action - [the requirements for discretionary action] The name of the union name B, the former president prior to the division of disciplinary action B (Plaintiff) M.

1. N: The supervisor A (Plaintiff) M in the above paragraph (1): The supervisor M in the above paragraph (1) who retired from office equivalent to disciplinary dismissal corresponding to the period of three months of suspension from office equivalent to the reprimand of the offender under the above paragraph (1) * the disciplinary measure against the party * the party * the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party / the party /

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 15 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 9, and the whole purport of the pleading, which are contrary to the principle of prohibition of double punishment against the plaintiff's assertion of the whole purport of the pleading, shall be held responsible for the management and supervision of the plaintiff concerning the act subject to the sanctions of this case, and the defendant's disciplinary action of this case against the plaintiff again was invalid because it violates the principle of prohibition of double punishment.

Unless M who asserts the deviation from or abuse of the authority to take disciplinary action has reported to the Plaintiff on the instant guide, it is in violation of the Plaintiff’s duty of management and supervision.