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 March 28, 1982, the Plaintiff was in the so-called Air Force. On March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service under the Presidential Decree of the Air Force. On April 1, 2006, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration was appointed as an agency and served as a senior public official from January 1, 2013 to January 18, 2015, the Director of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration Headquarters C (hereinafter referred to as the “Director”).

On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff, as the head of C, was in charge of amending the former Guidelines for Handling D Contract Affairs (No. 167 of the Regulations of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, hereinafter “instant Guidelines”).

On January 2, 2014, when the approval of the defendant has been completed as a result of the policy council's resolution at 108th session of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration with respect to the amendment bill of the above guidelines (hereinafter "the amendment bill of the guidelines of this case"), the plaintiff did not follow the procedures such as prior reporting to the upper part, etc., and ordered the Army Order F (hereinafter "F") at will, which is the team leader belonging to the headquarters B C of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration headquarters, to revise the contents of Article 18 of the above amendment bill as stated below [Attachment 1], and the F revised the contents of Article 18 of the above amendment bill as stated below [Attachment 1].

(2) On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff approved an official document containing the amendment (hereinafter “instant electronic document”). On January 3, 2014, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration transmitted the above official document to the regulatory reform legal officer and requested the issuance.

[Attachment 1]

B. The Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act due to the grounds for disciplinary action as follows (hereinafter “instant misconduct”), and requested the Central Disciplinary Committee to make a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act. On August 27, 2015, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on September 3, 2015, following a decision of the Central Disciplinary Committee.

C. The plaintiff is therefore.