1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From July 25, 1980, the Plaintiff was a local public official belonging to Seoul Special Metropolitan City. On November 15, 1989, the Plaintiff was subject to a new permit for real estate brokerage business and received money and valuables under the pretext of the new permit (hereinafter “instant non-explosion warning disposition”). On March 13, 1998, the Plaintiff became a special amnesty (hereinafter “instant special amnesty”).

B. On December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff retired from office. At the time, the Plaintiff was unable to be recommended as a person eligible for retirement rewards for the reason that the disposition of the instant non-written warning falls under the grounds for restrictions on the Government Rewards in 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a public official retired after his/her long-term service for at least 25 years, and the validity of the instant non-explosion warning disposition was lost as a special amnesty, and the person who received amnesty under the guidelines for personnel management (Notice No. 125, Aug. 15, 2008) following the enforcement of special amnesty (Notice No. 125, Public Administration and Security Notice No. 125, Aug. 15, 2008) provides that the Plaintiff

Nevertheless, it is unlawful to exclude the Plaintiff from the subject of retirement reward, on the ground that the Defendant’s disposition of disciplinary action and non-exploitious warning in the government reward work guidelines since 2015 is limited to the recommendation of retirement reward even if pardoned.

(b) Attached records, such as relevant statutes;

C. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff did not have the right to file an application under the laws or sound reasoning seeking that the Plaintiff be included in the Defendant’s recommendation for retirement rewards. 2) The lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is filed only by a person who filed an application for disposition and has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, and is seeking this.