1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases or addition. Thus, this case is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2, Nos. 4 and 5 are as follows.

From July 24, 2015 to December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff retired from office after reaching retirement age on June 30, 2018, when the head of the Education and Culture Division of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning affiliated with the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, and the head of the division of the above exhibition research team from December 9, 2016, as a state public official who was working as the head of the division of the above exhibition research teamF from June 30, 2018." On the fourth part of the fourth part of the 2017, the term " July 6, 2017" in the fourth part of the 4th part of the 2017. The 4th part of the 4th part of the

“Disciplinary action” (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary action on August 11, 2017”)

1) The term "B" was changed to "B".

The first-class 1 to 13 of the 5th page are as follows:

“4. The Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s main defense against the Plaintiff: (a) appears to have been paid benefits during the period of removal from his/her position before his/her retirement; (b) however, the instant lawsuit cannot be an effective and appropriate means for seeking unpaid benefits; and thus, (c) the Plaintiff’s retirement on June 30, 2018 is unlawful. In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s fact that the Plaintiff retired on June 30, 2018 is recognized as seen earlier; and (d) according to the evidence No. 8, the Plaintiff’s status was not partially paid due to the Plaintiff’s retirement age even if the Plaintiff’s status cannot be recovered due to the cancellation of the instant removal from his/her position due to the Plaintiff’s retirement age even if the Plaintiff’s retirement age was exceeded and thus, the Plaintiff’s legal interest in seeking nullification or revocation of the removal from his/her position (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du26180, May 16, 2014).