beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.03.22 2018구합5307

재결처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around November 2016, the Plaintiff was discharged on the ground that the employee held in B on July 22, 2017 and the visitors’ meeting were notified of non-performance of living rules, damage to goods, labor dispute, failure to participate in the program, failure to maintain cleanliness, etc. Around November 2016, the Plaintiff was discharged from the meeting on August 9, 2017.

B. On November 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant petition”) stating that “The Plaintiff made a simple warning against the existing inmates B and took a measure to unfairly discharge only the Plaintiff, even though other inmates have slandered and insulting the Plaintiff.” (Case Number : 17-Repetition-109400, hereinafter “instant petition”).

C. On April 9, 2018, the Defendant dismissed the instant petition in accordance with Article 39(1)1 of the National Human Rights Commission Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “In the absence of objective evidence to support the petitioner’s assertion in a situation where the Plaintiff did not comply with the admission rules, other than the assertion that the Plaintiff was unfairly discharged, there is no objective evidence to support the petitioner’s assertion.”

On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the National Human Rights Commission of the National Human Rights Commission. On July 6, 2018, the said commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff appears to have taken measures to discharge B because it violated the rules that the Plaintiff should comply with B, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s freedom of residence is superior to the Plaintiff’s freedom of operation. Even if other inmates were to violate the admission rules or treated the Plaintiff unfairly, that merely does not mean that B violated the Plaintiff’s human rights.”

(e) B is within the successful self-support and establishment of inmates;