The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is entrusted by the Sungsung City to operate the Center (hereinafter “instant center”) and the Plaintiff was appointed as the head of the instant center around October 3, 2012.

B. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant held a personnel committee on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith under Article 3(1) of the Gyeonggi-do Service Regulations, the duty of obeying Article 3(2), the duty of prohibiting departure from the workplace under paragraph (3), the duty of promoting friendship and fairness under paragraph (4), and the duty of maintaining dignity under paragraph (7) of the same Article, and that it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s act of impairing the reputation and prestige of the plenary session regardless of whether it is inside or outside Article 42(3) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of the Gisung branch, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant resolution of dismissal”), with the consent of six participants, and notified the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. The Plaintiff asserts that there was no action falling under the foregoing disciplinary cause as alleged by the Defendant, and the Suwon District Court 2014Gahap1754 filed a lawsuit to revoke the revocation of the revocation of the dismissal, and on May 22, 2014, the above court rendered a judgment that “the decision that the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff from the head of the Gyeonggi-do Association for the Disabled Persons Association B Center on October 25, 2013 shall be confirmed to be null and void.” However, in the case of Seoul High Court 2014Na28345 (Seoul High Court 2014) upon appeal by the Defendant, the term of office of the Chairperson of the Gyeonggi-do Association for the Chairperson of the Association for the Disabled Persons, and on February 2014, the term of office of the head of this case was the same, and thus, on the ground that “the Plaintiff begins with the term of office of the Chairperson of the Association for the Disabled Persons Association, and thus there was no benefit in protecting rights.”

On December 24, 2013, the plaintiff registered as a candidate for the defendant's branch election.

[Reasons for Recognition] contain non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4.