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 December 3, 1983, the Plaintiff started working with the General Civil Defense Division of the Office of Civil Affairs in Bupyeong-si as a local administrative secretary, and was appointed as a local administrative secretary on June 3, 1984. On February 25, 2005, the Plaintiff was promoted to the local administrative officer on February 25, 2005. From August 31, 2012, as the Gyeonggi-do corporate policy leader and the head of the B team, from January 25, 2013 to the Gyeonggi-do lifelong Education Bureau Cooperation and C team leader, and from September 24, 2013 to the North-do Construction Headquarters and D team leader.

B. On December 10, 2013, the Defendant took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 69 of the Local Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated good faith, the duty to obey, and the duty to maintain dignity, as set forth in the following grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “the initial measure”).

1. Compliance duty, violation of the duty to maintain dignity, and the prosecution of administrative trust;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) received a settlement report from G University on five occasions in relation to E “2012 F Business (Do subsidy)” and directly reviewed the settlement report; and (b) prepared a report on “2012 F Business Settlement Review Results”; and (c) reported the problems, countermeasures, and future action plans to H and I.

However, as the Plaintiff’s unilateral assertion that the content of the above report is serious and conflict arises, I directed G University that “It is necessary for G University to take measures to settle disputes after undergoing a thorough verification and consultation, and it is necessary for it to maintain security for this case.”

However, the above instructions for the maintenance of security are not only reasonable for the fair performance of duties, and even if it is determined that the above orders were unfair, it is necessary to know about the organization he/she knows that he/she is able to carry out the above instructions on the day he/she received the instructions for the maintenance of security for the above reports without complying with the aforementioned explanations and instructions, or without going through any procedures after going through consultation with the Code of Conduct Officer.

To inform this.