1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition in the first instance judgment is legitimate [cite the judgment in the first instance court] The grounds for this part are as follows: (a) the part of the judgment in the first instance court concerning the abuse of discretionary power except for the part concerning which the part concerning the abuse of discretionary power is used as follows; (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion; (c) the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; and (c) the determination on the existence of the reason for the disposition is identical to the part concerning the reason for the first instance judgment; and (b) the determination on the existence of the reason for the disposition; and (c) the part concerning the determination on the existence of the reason for the disposition is identical to that concerning the corresponding part of the judgment in the first instance court; and therefore, (c) the same shall be cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

C. 2) Determination on the assertion of substantive defect b) Determination on the abuse of discretion by a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official (1) is placed at the discretion of the person subject to disciplinary action. The disciplinary action is unlawful only when the person subject to disciplinary action as the exercise of discretion has been deemed to abuse the discretionary power, and the disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity by social norms. The disciplinary action against a public official should be determined based on a specific case where it can be objectively and objectively deemed that the contents of the disciplinary action are unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du10895, Oct. 11, 2012). Article 79 of the State Public Officials Act, and the Rules on Disciplinary Action [Attachment 1].