1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff passed the judicial examination on October 22, 1991, and completed the 23th period of the Judicial Research and Training Institute on February 28, 1994, and retired on February 27, 2012. On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was registered as an attorney-at-law belonging to the Seoul Local Bar Association and was currently limited liability law firm C (hereinafter “the instant law firm”).

(2) On June 16, 2014, the Korean Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee rendered a three-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the grounds of the previous reasons for disciplinary action, including the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”) as set forth in attached Table 1, Article 91(2)1, 2, 25, and 30 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 9(1) of the Rules of the Korean Bar Association Association, Article 3, 20(2), and (4) of the Code of Ethics, Article 9(3), and Article 9(4) of the Rules of the Attorney-at-Law.

Despite the fact that an attorney-at-law in violation of the duty of prohibition of publicity, such as relationship with D, etc., does not advertise to reveal and influence private relations, such as connection with public officials engaged in judgment or investigation affairs, for the purpose of being the number of legal cases or legal affairs, the Plaintiff, at the office of the law firm of this case on August 16, 2012, when discussing the name of the presiding judge in the course of an interview to enter into a delegation contract with D, the appellant for a compulsory auction of real estate at the Seoul Central District Court 2012Ra55, Seoul Central District Court on August 16, 2012, the Plaintiff discussed the name of the presiding judge in the course of an interview to enter into a delegation contract with D, which is a complaint for a compulsory auction of real estate at the Seoul Central District Court in the Gyeongnam area, and even

The monthly meeting costs are borne by us, and the presiding judge did not have one case even though he did not have a case in the case of the full bench, and he tried to make a decision immediately when he enters the presiding judge of Madern case.