1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was commissioned by the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B head of Dong for a term of two years.

B. On April 25, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be dismissed from the head of the Tong on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes Article 5(3)2 of the Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment of Tong Ban (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) (when the Plaintiff caused social water due to damage to dignity and thus becomes the subject of carbon from residents), and Article 5(3)5 (where it is deemed difficult to perform his/her duties due to considerable lack of capacity to perform the duties of the head of the Tong).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-2, Eul 2-1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff faithfully performed the duties assigned to the CC passbook and did not constitute a subject of bomb from the relevant resident due to injury to dignity, etc.

There is no ground for dismissal based on the annual dismissal list of the head of the Tong who is not confirmed, and the dismissal notification based on it is invalid.

B. As the Defendant’s principal safety defense expired on September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff lost his/her status as a head of the Tong, and no longer is able to recover his/her status.

The invalidity confirmation of the dismissal of this case is about the past legal relations, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

C. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff’s term of office 2 years was terminated on September 16, 2016, before the closing of argument in the instant case.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff won the lawsuit seeking nullification of the dismissal of this case, it is impossible to recover his status as the head of the Tong. As a result, the lawsuit seeking nullification of the dismissal of this case shall be deemed as the claim for confirmation of the past legal relationship, and as long as the ground that the plaintiff was dismissed cannot be deemed as the ground for legal restriction in commissioning the plaintiff as the head of the Tong again, such circumstance alone may be deemed as infringing legal interest.