The judgment of the first instance, including the claims modified by this Court, shall be modified as follows:

A. The defendant.

1. The facts of recognition B, after undergoing a personnel hearing of the National Assembly on March 24, 2015, was appointed by the President on March 27, 2015 as D to be in charge of inspecting the misconduct of persons in a special relationship with C, such as C’s relative relative, etc. on July 1, 2015. On July 1, 2015, the Seoul Jongno-gu recommended D office to be opened with the employees, fixed-term employees, etc. dispatched by the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the National Police Agency, the National Tax Service, and the NIS.

The Plaintiff served as a full-time professor in I and applied for a career competition recruitment examination for H (public officials in extraordinary civil service) and served as H (public officials in extraordinary civil service equivalent to Grade V) in the D office from March 14, 2016 after passing February 22, 2016.

B During the process of inspecting suspicions against K B’s secretary, on August 29, 2016, when D’s office was seized and searched from the Special Investigation Team for Public Prosecution on the same day, the resignation was submitted to the President on the same day, and the resignation was accepted on September 23, 2016 and was dismissed as a member on September 26, 2016.

The Personnel Innovation Agency receives F's telephone questioning (No. 4 No. 54 page), and on September 29, 2016, it is interpreted that "the expiration of the term of office under Article 3 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the D Act" in D office includes dismissal. Therefore, in accordance with the proviso of Article 3 (4) of the D Enforcement Decree, if there is no separate extension of the term of office prior to D's dismissal, it should be viewed that L and H are automatically retired from office with D.

“The present official document sent the text to the public (hereinafter “instant official document”). The Ministry of Justice also held that, on October 20, 2016, G’s defect in questioning whether it is possible to perform the financial commissioner’s work of M (No. 11 No. 31, No. 21) and October 24, 2016, “the expiration of the term of office under Article 3(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the D Act refers to the expiration of the term of office. As such, it is reasonable to interpret L and H as the temporary retirement of D, along with D’s dismissal. However, if D took a measure of extending the term of office for L and H prior to dismissal, it shall be deemed that D could have worked for an extension within the scope of one month. Therefore, D is therefore determined.