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 is a local public official who was appointed on December 31, 1991 and served in Section C in the same place of business from May 1, 201 to May 13, 1997 (the name of class is changed to a local industrial assistant as of July 1, 2007) and then served in Section B of the clean water management business office in Sungnam-si from May 1, 2015 to August 8, 2017, and was serving in Section C in the same place of business from August 9, 2017.

On July 24, 2017, at around 20:00, the Plaintiff, while serving at night with D Team E and night duty, has a conflict of opinion between E and E in relation to performance management performance performance, and during this process, the Plaintiff started two-time side of the office's will where E has been seated. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sustained the injury requiring two-time medical treatment on E's elbane.

B. On November 22, 2017, the personnel committee in Seongbuk-si recognized that the following grounds (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) were true and that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and determined that the instant misconduct constituted grounds for disciplinary action under Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act due to the violation of Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 55 (Duty of Good Faith) and Article 4 (Establishment of Work Hours) of the Local Public Officials Ordinance in Seongbuk-si, and that the instant misconduct constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act. In accordance with Article 8 of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations and Article 2(1) of the Local Public Officials Disciplinary Rule, the committee granted a reduction in salary, and made a decision to grant a reduction in salary pursuant to Article 5 (Reduction of

C. Accordingly, on November 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a reprimand against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On December 14, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Gyeonggi-do Review Committee, but the said Committee rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on January 15, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion caused the Plaintiff’s ordinary character and behavior or the instant misconduct.