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 January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was first appointed as a senior public official in contractual service and served as a B art gallery site until he/she was released from his/her position on October 15, 2014.

B. On August 1, 2013, B art galleries published D in the East and modern art theory field C as a successful applicant on October 14, 2013, and appointed a successful applicant on November 1, 2013, following the second interview conducted by three persons from among eight applicants for the Eastistic theory (three persons from among three applicants for the Eastistic theory, and 40 applicants for the modern art theory) and the first document screening type.

C. From June 9, 2014 to July 11, 2014, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted a specific audit on “the actual condition of special employment of art researchers” and notified the Defendant of the audit results.

On November 24, 2014, the Defendant was subject to two months of suspension from office on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The grounds for the disciplinary action presented by the Defendant are as follows.

On September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff was undergoing a document screening for the employment of a research researcher of the art museum on B art museum on September 4, 2013, and then divided the interview between the examiners and 20 minutes. At the time of the completion of the examination, the Plaintiff was aware that D, applying for the field of modern art theory, was disqualified, and instructed E to raise D to pass the examination, knowing that D, applying for the field of modern art theory, was disqualified.

E, according to the instructions given by the examiner, the F, adjusted the D's ranking as a successful candidate in the document screening by raising the scores given by the F.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff attended the interview and asked D and C having a pro rata relationship with the Plaintiff for more than two times more than ten minutes of the scheduled interview, while the Plaintiff asked other questions.