1. The Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff as of October 5, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 3, 2012, the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency conducted an investigation by obtaining intelligence that the Plaintiff was affiliated with an illegal bond service provider and provided information about investigation or engaged in illegal credit business, and then notified the head of Pyeongtaek-si Police Station of the results thereof.

B. On September 21, 2012, the head of Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station requested the General Disciplinary Committee on Police Officers of Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station (hereinafter “General Disciplinary Committee”) to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the same ground as the attached Form 1 (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”), and “paragraph (e) of the attached Table 1” shall be “Disciplinary Reason 2,” “paragraph (2)” shall be “Disciplinary Reason 3,” and “paragraph (3)” shall be “Disciplinary Reason 4,” and the “Disciplinary Reason 3” shall be “Disciplinary Reason 4,” and the “Disciplinary Reason 4,” together, requested the Plaintiff to take disciplinary action on the ground of the “Public Notice” column attached to the above written request for disciplinary action, and only the official commendation received from the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs on October 21, 2003, and the official commendation received from the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency on March 31, 2006, omitted from the official commendation and official commendation by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.”

C. On September 27, 2012, the Ordinary Disciplinary Committee held a disciplinary committee to examine the Plaintiff, and decided on the dismissal of the Plaintiff. The executive secretary of the General Disciplinary Committee notified the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff received official commendation from the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs, but does not constitute a ground for normal participation.”

According to the above disciplinary resolution, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff on October 5, 2012 and hereinafter referred to as "the disciplinary action in this case").

On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the appeals review committee around November 2, 2012.