1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 10, 1983, the Plaintiff is a local public official who started a public service at the ASEAN-gun Public Health Center and served as Asan-si B from January 3, 201 to January 1, 2013.

B. On July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff committed a wrongful act of having an excessive employee disburse KRW 50,883,00 of the meal cost (hereinafter “instant wrongful act”) by providing a different item of the budget execution and providing meal service period in duplicate after having different items of the budget execution items, or by paying it to employees who do not work overtime hours in duplicate with other team meal service providers, or by paying it to employees who do not work overtime hours, etc. The Plaintiff committed a wrongful act of having the excessive employee disburse KRW 50,83,00 (hereinafter “instant wrongful act”). On April 6, 2015, the Defendant, who was discovered through the audit, issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 30,00 of the suspension from office and the surcharge for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). C.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was charged with summary order of KRW 7 million on May 18, 2015 with regard to the instant misconduct, including the crime of fraud, preparation of false public documents, and the crime of uttering of false public documents (Sacheon District Court Decision 2015Da830), and the said summary order was finalized on May 29, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant summary order”). D.

The Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Cheongnam-do Local Appeals Review Committee on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on May 6, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the imposition of disciplinary surcharge under the Local Public Officials Act can be limited to embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds. The Plaintiff is only punished for fraud, preparation of false public documents, and uttering of false public documents in the instant summary order, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff was punished for embezzlement. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.