1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After being appointed as a fire-fighting officer in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 6, 1985, the Plaintiff served as a fire-fighting officer in the Yongsan Fire-Fighting Assistant, the Mapo Fire-Fighting Assistant, and the Guro Fire-Fighting Assistant. From October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff served as a fire-fighting officer in the Middle Fire-Fighting Assistant, the 119 Safety Center Fire-Fighting Assistant, and thereafter served as a fire-fighting assistant in the Nowon Fire-Fighting Assistant from January 14, 2015.

B. On March 25, 2014, a fire occurred at the Plaintiff’s home (e.g., B apartment 501). At that time, the fire was burned to the Plaintiff’s home (e.g., the apartment 502; hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the fire was burned to the Plaintiff’s home (e.g., the apartment 502; hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the damage was caused by the fire

C. Since then, the plaintiff was investigated into the facts of the crime of causing property damage and the crime of not complying with the request of the victim of this case (hereinafter "the victim of this case") on the ground that "the plaintiff accepted the apartment of this case where damage was caused by fire from around 07:50 on June 23, 2014 to 12:17 on the same day, the plaintiff was investigated as the facts of the crime of causing property damage and the crime of refusing to leave." The prosecutor of the Office of origin Office in the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office in the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office issued a non-prosecution disposition against the plaintiff on September 30, 2014 against the plaintiff, and the defendant was found to have been guilty of the crime of refusing to leave the apartment of this case, but the motive to remove the wall of this case should be considered to have been entered with the purpose of removing the noise of the wall of this case, and the victim of this case also suspended the indictment for the reason that the victim of this case did not want the punishment.

(hereinafter “Non-prosecution disposition of this case”). D.

On October 7, 2014, the Defendant was notified of the result of the instant non-prosecution disposition by the Head of Si/Gun/Gu Office in the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office. On October 15, 2014, the Defendant made a request for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the suspicion of disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), and accordingly, made a request for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.