부당징계구제재심판정취소
1. All appeals of this case are dismissed.
2. Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment as described in paragraph (2) is added to the argument of the defendant
Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The judgment of this Court
A. (1) As to the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action (1) Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assertion 1) As to the grounds for disciplinary action against the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”), the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion 1)
(2) The Plaintiff did not clearly confirm or investigate whether the Intervenor’s act of misconduct contained in the notice of termination of service of the instant consortium is true, and the instant disposition of suspension from office was taken as grounds for disciplinary action.
Therefore, the grounds for disciplinary action Nos. 1, 4, and 5 which were not verified at the time of the opening of the personnel committee cannot be the justifiable grounds for disciplinary action
(B) On the grounds delineated below, this part of the argument by the Defendant and the Intervenor cannot be accepted.
1) According to the facts and evidence admitted by the first instance court as seen earlier, the facts that the Intervenor committed the act of misconduct, such as the grounds for disciplinary action Nos. 1, 4, and 5, are sufficiently recognized, and the evidence submitted by the Intervenor, including the written evidence Nos. 23 and 24, is insufficient to reverse the recognition of the above facts. 2) According to the written evidence Nos. 30, 32, and 34, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee to deliberate on the disciplinary agenda against the Intervenor during the Intervenor’s attending the meeting on Nov. 6, 2013, and provided the Intervenor with sufficient opportunity to confirm whether the Intervenor was admitted, and the Plaintiff provided the Intervenor with sufficient opportunity to state his opinion. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24870, Nov. 8, 2013>