부당징계구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of a judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion, and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420
(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disciplinary action is unfair in view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s grounds alleged in this court are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court; and (b) the first instance court and this court’s examination of all evidence presented by the Plaintiff, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion; (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion on February 2, 200: (a) the Plaintiff forced the Plaintiff, by repeatedly violating the relevant provisions of the Labor Standards Act, collective agreement, and Passenger Transport Service Act; (d) the Plaintiff’s accusation against the Ministry of Employment and Labor; and (e) the Plaintiff’
However, it is insufficient to recognize the evidence Nos. 2 through 8 only by itself, and even considering other circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, the instant disciplinary action cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power as it considerably lacks validity under social norms.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be justified, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.