beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.19 2019누31091

해임처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Grounds for the judgment of the court of the first instance, which the court states concerning this case, are grounds for the judgment of the court of the second instance

C. Articles 2 and 2-4 (d) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and Article 2-1 (1) and 2-1 (b) of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, the same shall be cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. [2] Whether a disciplinary measure is taken when a disciplinary measure is taken against a disciplinary person who is a public official under the relevant legal principles, is placed at the discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary measures. However, if a disciplinary measure taken by a person having authority over disciplinary measures as an exercise of discretion is deemed to abuse of discretion, it is unlawful only if the disciplinary measure taken by the person having authority over disciplinary measures is deemed to have considerably lost validity under the social norms, and it is clearly unreasonable in light of the content and nature of the relevant facts causing disciplinary action, administrative purpose achieved by a disciplinary action, and the criteria for disciplinary action, and thus, it should be determined that the disciplinary measure is unreasonable.