1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff passed the first bar examination on March 23, 2012, and registered as an attorney-at-law belonging to the Seoul Bar Association on October 4, 2012.

B. On April 27, 2017, the Korean Bar Association Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Bar Association Disciplinary Committee”) rendered a decision on disciplinary action of two months of suspension from office on the ground that “The Plaintiff lent the Plaintiff’s name to B, other than an attorney-at-law, from November 4, 2013 to September 7, 2015, and caused B to handle legal affairs, such as personal rehabilitation, by receiving a total of KRW 277,6250,000,000, in total as a commission fee, and thereby, violated the duty of prohibiting the lending of name and thereby impairing the dignity of the attorney.”

C. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed against the above disciplinary decision, but was dismissed on March 23, 2018.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul's evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the grounds for disciplinary action of the Plaintiff’s assertion are acknowledged, considering the fact that the amount received from B is without any substantial income by using value-added tax, rent, etc., and the balance with other similar cases, the disciplinary action of the instant case is harsh, the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment and paid both a fine and a surcharge, the Plaintiff’s position as an attorney, and the need to protect the client’s trust in the case that the Plaintiff is in progress upon acceptance of the case, etc., the disposition of the instant case is an unlawful act that deviates from and abused discretionary power, as the disciplinary action of the instant case has considerably lost validity under social norms.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The fact that the disciplinary action should be taken specifically against the person subject to the disciplinary action due to the grounds for the disciplinary action is placed at the discretion of the person with authority to take the disciplinary action, but the disciplinary action taken by the person with authority to take the disciplinary action as the exercise of discretion.