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

A. On June 12, 199, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer, and was promoted to a slope on June 3, 2010. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff served for the life safety of the Jeju East Police Station and the B District C according to the personnel order issued on October 24, 2016.

B. From March 15, 2017 to March 25, 2017, the Plaintiff used annual leaves for the purpose of overseas travel with her natives. After the expiry of the leave period, the Plaintiff was unable to attend each night on March 26, 2017, which was designated as the Plaintiff’s working day, at night, on March 29, 2017, and on March 30, 2017. Meanwhile, on March 27, 2017, the Defendant was unable to respond to the call due to the lack of emergency contact despite the FTX mobilization order for the security service related to the Jeju 43 event from the Defendant on March 28, 2017.

C. On April 28, 2017, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff was absent from office without permission due to drinking and was unable to comply with the mobilization order as a result of inspection, and was subject to disciplinary action for February of salary reduction for the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(2) The Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). The Plaintiff, even before, issued a verbal warning and personnel order to the chief of the police station on the ground of drinking, is absent from office without permission due to continuous drinking. The Plaintiff, in violation of Article 57 (Duty of Odial Species) of the State Public Officials Act, ordered his superior’s district commander and team leader to attend work several times, but the Plaintiff violated Article 58 (Prohibition of Absence from Office) of the State Public Officials Act, such as continuing drinking and absence from work without permission, etc. on the working day without justifiable grounds, ordered a superior’s district commander, team leader, and team leader to take part in drinking and work at work. However, without justifiable grounds, the Plaintiff, in violation of Article 58 (Prohibition of Absence from Office) of the State Public Officials Act, instructed the Plaintiff to continuously issue a legitimate order, such as continuous absence of drinking on the working day without justifiable grounds (based upon recognition).