1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

From December 12, 2016 to January 13, 2016, a special audit was conducted for the C Laboratory under the Defendant’s control of the responsible researcher (chief of office). The special audit was submitted to the Plaintiff on December 12, 2016: ① inappropriate management of common funds; ② inappropriate purchase contract; ③ inappropriate purchase contract; ③ a special audit report requesting a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the grounds of inappropriate use of the corporate card; and the said report was notified to the Plaintiff on January 19, 2017.

(2) On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the exemption from active administration related to the improper holding of a false seminars among the improper holding of technical service contract procedures and the application for exemption from positive administration related to the improper holding of a promotional video purchase contract, respectively, on February 8, 2017, and the Defendant dismissed each of the above applications by the Plaintiff on February 28, 2017.

- The results of deliberation by the commission, acts recognized as improper, such as interview to recommend the employment of service personnel, acts of processing the request for purchase of promotional video, acts of request for installment purchase of meeting expenses and seminars, falsely stating the number of participants in the execution of meeting expenses and seminars differently from the original agency's internal items in relation to the technical service contract - The grounds for disciplinary action in question constitute violation of the duty of good faith, violation of the duty of integrity, violation of the duty of integrity, and breach of the duty of dignity, and breach of the duty of maintenance of dignity, which were discussed on the basis of the report of special audit and review application, and review. The disciplinary action in question falls under a violation of the duty of good faith, violation of the duty of care, violation of the duty of integrity, and breach of the duty of dignity, and heavy disciplinary action, which constitutes a violation of the duty of care, and in consideration of the grounds for increase and mitigation, the defendant decided on March 17, 201 to the plaintiff on March 21, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On April 17, 201, the Plaintiff re-examines the instant disciplinary action.