견책처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff was appointed as a public official with a fixed term system in charge of law affairs (class: local administrative officer, term of appointment: two years) and is still in service until now.
B. On November 23, 2016, the personnel committee in B decided to punish the Plaintiff. On December 16, 2016, the Defendant issued a reprimand pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 55 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the Local Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff made a verbal speech to the employees of class C of administrative grade 9 on several occasions, - around 19:00, the Plaintiff made a verbal speech to the employees of class C of administrative grade 9, and made an administrative class 7 D who requested the Plaintiff to make a speech by making a verbal speech, and made a verbal speech to the employees of class C of administrative grade 7 who made a request for an early speech. - around 21:0 on October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff made a false speech to the employees of class C of administrative grade 9 on the ground that he/she made a false speech to the employees of class C of administrative grade 9 around 09:10.
C. On January 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Gangwon-do Review Committee seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the Gangwon-do Review Committee dismissed the petition on April 17, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap's 1 to 3, 20, 25 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not take a bath to other employees, such as C and G, in addition to the Plaintiff’s abusive speech on October 20, 2016 and October 21, 2016 to D, E, and F. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as the grounds for such disposition do not exist partially. (2) The instant disposition is unlawful as it did not exist. (3) In addition to erroneous determination of facts as to the grounds for disciplinary action as seen earlier and the circumstances leading the Plaintiff to take a bath on October 20, 2016 and October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff should seek another workplace upon the expiration of his/her term of office as a public official with a fixed term position.