1. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff on March 3, 2014 confirms that the dismissal is null and void.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The defendant is a corporation established by integrating the existing Farmland Improvement Cooperatives Federation, Farmland Improvement Cooperatives and Agricultural Promotion Corporation in order to contribute to the economic and social development of agricultural and fishing villages by implementing a rural development project on January 1, 2000, comprehensively managing agricultural infrastructure, and promoting agricultural productivity. 2) The plaintiff was newly employed on April 20, 1992 and worked for Grade 5 at the branch offices of the Rural Development Corporation on April 20, 1992, and the defendant passed the promotion examination for Grade 3 as of November 24, 2007, and was promoted to Grade 3 on January 13, 2008 by the defendant on December 28, 2007.

B. On January 23, 2014, the Commissioner of the Cheongnam-do Police Agency notified the Defendant of the investigation result that the Plaintiff passed the examination and answer in advance at the promotion examination, and provided money for the examination. As a result of the investigation, 30 employees, other than 32 employees whose statute of limitations has lapsed, among 62 employees of the Defendant who were revealed to have committed unlawful acts related to the promotion examination, were indicted, and the facts related to the promotion examination were reported to the press. 2) On February 14, 2014, the Defendant’s president demanded a resolution on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff to the High Personnel Committee on March 14, 2014. On March 3, 2014, the High Personnel Committee notified the Plaintiff of the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”). The Plaintiff’s duties, such as statutes, articles of incorporation, and regulations, etc., were ordered to the press, thereby impairing the Defendant’s reputation and the above contents, thereby impairing the Defendant’s duty of disciplinary action against employees and employees.

Accordingly, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff on the same day (hereinafter "the dismissal of this case"). On the other hand, December 28, 2007 against the plaintiff.