[Supplementary Districts in Ansan-si]

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Kim Kim-soo

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiff's status

On April 1, 1998, the Plaintiff is the head of the local headquarters of the National Democratic Public Officials' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Officials' Union") who was employed as a local administrative assistant after being appointed as a local administrative assistant on March 3, 2008, and worked in the Gesung Construction and Transportation Bureau for Disaster and Safety.

B. Declarations of Korean Teachers' Union

(1) On June 18, 2009, the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “former Teachers’ Union”) announced a warning to the Assembly under the name of 16,171 teachers who belong to the previous school in the name of 16,171.

(2) The Assembly and Demonstration Act refers to the investigation of candlelight off demonstration, the investigation of PD pocket book, the fire incident, the inter-Korean relations color, and the crisis of education, etc., and the fundamental human rights were seriously damaged due to abuse of governmental authority of the present government, which led to the crisis of democracy. This is based on the present government's team and the Decree of the Porting and Porting.

(c) promoting the 19th Pacific and pan-national meetings;

(1) On June 18, 2009, a public-private partnership union declared that “the public-private partnership organization supported by the public-private partnership organization. The government announced the public-private partnership organization’s withdrawal of disciplinary measures and withdrawal of disciplinary measures against the participants. On June 22, 2009, the public-private partnership organization’s major labor union(hereinafter “the public-private partnership organization”) and the court-private partnership organization’s labor union(hereinafter “the public-private partnership organization”)’s officers are three public-private partnership organizations at the public-private partnership organization office in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul and discussed that three public-private partnership members should jointly cooperate with the public-private partnership organization in the public-private partnership organization.

(2) The Minister of Public Administration and Security, on June 23, 2009, declared that the Declaration of Public Officials’ Unions constitutes a collective act prohibited by the State Public Officials Act, etc., and that the Declaration of Public Officials’ Unions, three public officials’ union chairpersons and executives, etc., were held in the office of the Korean Workers’ Union Federation (hereinafter “the Democratic Labor Union Federation”) on June 26, 2009, and announced that the Declaration of Public Officials’ Labor Union was conducted by asserting that the Declaration of Public Officials’ Labor Unions was suspended in relation to the discussion of three public officials’ Labor Unions, and that the Declaration of Public Officials’ Labor Unions was demoted.

(d) Lighting advertisements, etc.;

On July 13, 2009, the public-private partnership union had been placed on the front 32 pages of the Han Blue Newspapers and 7 pages. The contents are as follows: “I want to become a public official other than the government. The public official may not speak about democracy, the economy of ordinary people, the Korean Peninsula, and labor welfare. On July 19, 200, the government announced that I would like to be a public official of the Republic of Korea, and that I would like to be a public official of the Republic of Korea, and that I would like to be a public official of the Republic of Korea, and that I would like to be a public official of the Republic of Korea under the name of the public-private partnership and the public official of the Republic of Korea. The government announced that I would like to be a public official of the Republic of Korea under the name of the public-private partnership and the public-private partnership under the name of the 16th public-private partnership meeting on July 19, 200, to 7th of the same day.

(e) 7. 19 Pacific and pan-national meetings;

(1) The Assembly and Demonstration of Teachers and Public Officials (hereinafter referred to as the “National Assembly and Demonstration”) is called the “National Assembly and Demonstration.”

(A) On July 19, 2009: from 00 to 17:00 on the same day, a member of the Democratic Labor Party, a member of the Democratic Party, a representative of the Democratic Party, a chairman of the Democratic Labor Management Group, a chairman of the former Democratic Labor Management Group, 1, 100 members of the former EMM, 150 members of the former EMM, 100 members of the Special Labor Management Group, 100 members of the Special Labor Union, 100 members of the Court, 50 members of the court labor union, and 17:0 on July 19, 200, a prior event of "the National Assembly of the People's Republic of Korea" was held on July 19, 200.

(B) A public official, the president of the public-private partnership, has been carrying out the assembly and demonstration through a newspaper advertisement. A public official's labor union was re-established as a public official's labor union for the purpose of the public-private partnership, and the participants participated in the assembly as a means of creating relief according to the election of the above speakers. Specifically, the participants avoided MB MB law with the public's vision, which led to the appearance of "the state-private partnership," and "the public-private partnership," and "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," "the public-private partnership," and "the public-private partnership," etc.

(C) In addition, in the Seoul Station square, “976 dismissed workers were distributed a political party news or a printed incentive criticizes the present government of the Seoul Station containing political arguments, such as “I would protect the Socialization Labor containing the arguments related to the two vehicles of the Republic of Korea,” “I would protect the Democratic Party for the Democratic Economic Democracy of the Republic of Korea,” “I would like to protect the Democratic Party for the Democratic Economic Dempi,” “MB trial, university students’ solidarity for the recovery of democracy,” etc.

(2) The second Korean People's Congress for Democratic Recovery and Biological Organisms;

(A) From 00 to 19:00 on the same day, from 17:0 to 19:00 on the Seoul Station, YTN Nong was a 'the second pan-national conference for the Democratic Recovery and Living Together of the People's Republic of Korea. The participants at the Assembly withdrawn the Press Act and died in the non-regular form of the press. Hashed Hashed Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had k

( 나 ) 또한 , 한국진보연대 이강실 공동대표는 " 반 MB전선을 만들어 똘똘 뭉쳐 투쟁해 나가자 " 라고 연설하고 , 민주노총 임지지 위원장은 " 우리 노동자들은 쌍용차 공 권력 투입과 미디어법 강행처리 시 전면 파업에 돌입할 것이다 " 라고 연설하였으며 , 최 11 언론노조 위원장은 " 언론악법 폐지를 위해 MB정권에 맞서 끝까지 투쟁할 것이

다 " 라고 연설하였다 . 계속하여 민주당 송 의원은 " 언론은 민주주의 생명이다 . 미디 어법은 절대로 통과되어서는 안 된다 " 라고 연설하고 , 민노당 강♧♧ 의원은 " 현 정부는 서민정부를 죽이고 있다 " 라고 연설하였으며 , 창조한국당 유 의원은 " 현 정부와 한 판 붙어서 이 지구상에서 영원히 격리시키자 " 라고 연설하였다 .

(f) Disciplinary action and criminal judgment;

(1) On October 9, 2009, the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee, upon the Defendant’s request for disciplinary action, emphasized that the Plaintiff explained the illegality of the assembly and demonstration through various ways, such as official documents and news materials, etc., and suspended relevant activities, there was a fact that the Plaintiff, as the head of the Gyeonggi-do Gyeonggi-do sports headquarters of the public sector, participated in the racing advertisements supporting the pre-school group in the Gracin Newspaper bulletin Board on July 15, 2009, and participated primarily in the instant Simnaction on the ground of a flag. This is against Articles 48 (Duty of Good Faith), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), and 58 (Prohibition of Collective Act), and Article 10 (3) of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials’ Labor Unions and Article 30 (1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 10130, Mar. 17, 2010).

(2) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Gyeonggi-do Local Appeals Commission on November 30, 2009, but the said commission dismissed it on February 1, 2010.

(3) On the other hand, on April 14, 2010, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million on the ground that he/she "collective action for activities other than official duties" prohibited under Article 58 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act by participating in the national conference of this case by participating in the Suwon District Court (No. 2009Da4584), and upon appeal, the Suwon District Court (No. 2010No1807) which caused the appellate trial was sentenced to a mitigated fine of KRW 1 million on May 26, 201.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s 1 through 3, 7 through 11, 14, 15, Eul’s 1 through 20, all or part of the pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) Issues in the fact-finding of the grounds for disciplinary action

On July 17, 2009, the Defendant issued a public notice prohibiting the participation in the instant national conference. However, on July 17, 2009, the date of causing considerable damage to facilities, etc. due to heavy rain, and disaster safety and public officials belonging thereto, including the Plaintiff, were on duty at a closing day for the restoration of damage. In such a situation, the Defendant participated in the instant national conference, which was after this mold, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have failed to obey an official order.

(2) Issues in the application of the grounds for disciplinary action

Article 3 of the former Public Officials' Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that if a group of public officials falls under "reasonable activities related to a trade union" under the premise that it constitutes a group act prohibited under Article 58 of the Local Public Officials' Act, it shall not be exceptionally punished. Article 4 of the former Public Officials' Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that if a public official conducts "political activities prohibited under other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 57 of the Local Public Officials' Act," it shall be interpreted that he/she conducts "political activities" prohibited under the above Act. Thus, unless he/she violates Articles 57 and 58 of the Local Public Officials' Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it shall not be deemed that the former Public Officials' Labor Relations Adjustment Act has been violated separately.

However, the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not result from the purpose of supporting or opposing a specific political party, political organization, or candidate for a public election. Thus, the act of supporting the public and private union members including the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a political campaign prohibited under Article 57 of the Local Public Officials Act.

In addition, the "collective action for any work other than public duties" prohibited under Article 58 of the Local Public Officials Act refers to a collective action that may affect the duty of care for a purpose contrary to the public interest, such as neglecting the duty of care. It is difficult to view that the act of participating in the National Assembly of this case, which is a lawful and peaceful meeting on Sundays, was in violation of the law, and the act of publishing the instant visible advertising, which was conducted outside the hours of business, was in violation of the law, and it is not an "purpose contrary to the public interest" as it is against the infringement of the freedom of speech, etc. guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be said to have violated Article 58 of the Local Public Officials Act.

Rather, the above act of the plaintiff should be seen as a "justifiable activity related to the labor union" under Article 3 of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act.

In addition, as seen earlier, advertising or participating in the instant national assembly is for the public interest and is legitimate act. Rather, it is not a legitimate order for public officials participating in the assembly or demonstration of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, such as guidance or public order prohibiting participation in the assembly or demonstration of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security. Thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff violated the duty to obey under the Local Public Officials Act, the duty to maintain good faith, or the duty to maintain dignity.

(3) problems arising from a disciplinary action

When considering all the circumstances, such as the developments leading up to the instant disciplinary cause, the equity with other public officials subject to disciplinary action for the same reason, and the Plaintiff faithfully performed his duties as a public official, the instant disposition is an unlawful disposition that deviates from and abused discretion.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Regarding the fact-finding of the grounds for disciplinary action

In full view of the purport of the entire argument by the above evidence, the article that the Ministry of Public Administration and Security posted in the newspapers or broadcast media other than the official gazette of July 17, 2009, the article that the public officials of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security would not participate in the national conference or the second national conference of this case, and considering the above status of the plaintiff and the direction system and communication structure within the public-private partnership, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was aware that the Ministry of Public Administration and Security or the defendant was prohibited from participating in the national conference of this case at the time of the participation in the national conference of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion related to the fact-finding of the grounds for disciplinary action cannot be accepted.

(2) Regarding the application of the laws and regulations on the grounds of disciplinary action

(A) As to the assertion that the term "justifiable trade union activities" and not "prohibited political activities" or "collective activities" are not "collective activities."

1) In full view of the provisions of Articles 1, 3(1), 4, and 8(1) of the former Public Officials’ Labor Unions Act, and Article 2(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the term “justifiable activities related to public officials’ trade unions” under Article 3(1) of the former Public Officials’ Labor Unions Act is interpreted as aiming at maintaining and improving working conditions and improving other workers’ economic and social status.

In this case, on June 18, 2009, the Presidential Decree was criticized for the present government's policies, such as "the investigation of candlelightlight demonstration", "the PDbook investigation", "the MD fire incident", "the inter-Korean relations color", and three public officials' unions such as public officials' will were decided to jointly act in concert with the above. Accordingly, the plaintiff, as the head of the public service and labor region headquarters of this case, as the head of the public service and labor region of this case, was present to support the contents of the Declaration.

In addition, a number of political parties or groups opposing the government policies of this case.

As the body is widely participating in the assembly and demonstration, the contents of the assembly and demonstration were political arguments through a speech by the public and private organizations, such as “the assembly and demonstration of MB MBA”, “the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly, “the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly,” “the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly and demonstration of the assembly,” “the assembly and demonstration of the

In light of the aforementioned developments and contents of the promotion of the national conference of this case, the original act is an act of expressing political intent to exercise influence over the decision of government policies and the ruling by linking the government with each political party, political and social organization, and it cannot be deemed that the original act is an act of expressing political intent to exercise influence over the decision of government policies and the ruling, and it cannot be deemed that it is intended to maintain and improve the working conditions belonging to the category of the "justifiable labor union activities" under Article 3 (1) of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act and to improve the economic and social status

2) Also, in light of the following, the Plaintiff’s above act constitutes “political activity” prohibited under Article 4 of the former Public Officials’ Union Act.

In other words, Article 4 of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act provides that "no trade union nor its members shall engage in political activities". ① The former Public Officials' Labor Union Act provides that the scope of activities of a public official's trade union, in principle, shall be limited to activities to improve economic and social conditions, such as remuneration, welfare, and other working conditions of the public official's union or its members pursuant to the legal reservation of Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, and exclude matters concerning the management and operation of the government's organization, such as the exercise of the right to appoint, which are not directly related to the working conditions of the government's organization from the scope of activities (Article 3 and Article 8 of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act). ② The former Public Officials' Labor Union Act provides that the prohibition of "political activities" under the National Public Officials' Labor Union Act and the Local Public Officials' Labor Union Act shall not be restricted to those of political activities and political activities that are not contrary to the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act, and it shall not be restricted to those of political activities or political activities that are prohibited.

3) However, with regard to "prohibited collective action", Article 58 (1) (main sentence) of the Local Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall engage in any collective action for any work other than a public official." In this context, "collective action for any work other than a public official" refers to any collective action conducted by a public official for any work that does not belong to a public official, but "collective action that affects the public interest in light of the legislative intent of Article 21 (1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association, the purpose of the Local Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith under the Local Public Officials Act, and the duty of good faith under the Local Public Officials Act, etc." (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do540, Oct. 4, 2005; 200Do8279, Oct. 15, 2005).

In this case, civil and public officers including the plaintiff mentioned the investigation of candlelight demonstration, the investigation of PD pocket book, the investigation of the fire accident, the inter-Korean relations, etc. were seriously damaged due to abuse of governmental authority by the present government, resulting in a crisis in democracy. This supports the assembly assembly and demonstration, which was caused by the abuse of public authority by the present government, and decided that three public officials' unions should jointly participate in the assembly and demonstration, while encouraging three public officials' unions to participate in the assembly and demonstration of this case at the headquarters and its affiliated branch of the present government and encourage them to participate in the assembly and demonstration of this case.

By doing activities, public officials belonging to the civil and labor union participated in the instant national conference, and she also attended it to cause conflicts and confusions surrounding the perception of the state situation at the time, and have a negative impact on public officials' political neutrality.

In light of these circumstances, the main purpose of the plaintiff is not to improve working conditions, but to accomplish the argument opposing the government policy by pressureing the government, which is to infringe on the political neutrality of public officials as well as collective political activities.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above act constitutes a “collective act that may affect the duty of care, such as neglecting the duty of care for the purpose that goes against the public interest” and it does not change even if the instant conference was held on holidays.

(B) As to the assertion that the duty to maintain good faith, obey, and maintain dignity is not violated

The duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act is the most fundamental duty imposed on public officials, and the duty to maintain dignity under Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act is to faithfully perform the duties in good faith in order to promote the public interest as much as possible and prevent any disadvantage. Since the duty to maintain dignity under Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act is widely entrusted by the people to the public and to work for the whole of the people, it is feared that the act of dignity of public officials is likely to undermine the people's trust as well as the public official's duty, and therefore, the duty to maintain dignity is to require the public official to live a sound life as well as the part related to the public official's duty. In this context, the term "quality" refers to a person who is a delegate of the people who is a sovereign and has not been frighted, and thus, the act of the plaintiff by pressureing the government in connection with a particular political party or political force and exercising influence over the decision of the government policy constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith and good faith.

In addition, even if the time is not required to the extent that the plaintiff's work performance is likely to be impeded, since the duty of a public official who faithfully performs his duty with the whole character and conscience to promote public interest and prevent the disadvantage is limited to his duty not to engage in any act that may affect the fairness of his duty and infringe on the trust of the people, the defendant's act of prohibiting the plaintiff from participating in the national conference or engaging in the public relations activities constitutes a legitimate order in the course of his duty (the contents that the plaintiff et al. want to express through the national conference of this case are not legitimate as seen earlier cannot be viewed as censorship without any justifiable reason) and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's act in violation of this duty violates the duty of obey as stipulated in the Local Public Officials Act.

(3) Whether a disciplinary action is appropriate

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is held at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to abuse the discretionary power that has been placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, the measure is unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, depending on specific cases, the contents and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure, etc. are considered to be clearly unfair as objective. Even if the exercise of authority to take the disciplinary measure is placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, it is deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure are clearly unfair. This is against the principle of public interest that should exercise the authority to take the disciplinary measure for public interest, or is generally considered as a disciplinary reason, it violates the principle of proportionality by selecting more than the degree of flight, or violates the principle of fairness and equality 160.

In light of the above legal principles, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence Nos. 10 and 12 of this case

In addition to the whole arguments, the following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff, who is a public official required to be political neutrality under the Constitution, was engaged in active political activities beyond the level of resistance to the government policy, and the Plaintiff’s act is not likely to exert an adverse influence on the official fairness of public officials and the trust of the people. However, the Plaintiff’s act is an affiliated organization in the public sector and its branch are established in Metropolitan City/Do as its affiliated organization. The Plaintiff, as the head of the sports community headquarters, seems to have low organizational status compared to the chairman or vice chairman of the public sector, who is the central executive of the public sector, as the head of the sports community headquarters of this case, was under the influence of the public sector’s decision of the public sector, and it seems that the influence on the determination of the public sector’s will related to the central government sector, etc. of this case would not be somewhat high, and the above disposition was revoked through administrative litigation, and most of the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff and local public officials of each region, was deprived of their status, and was subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case shall be revoked as it is illegal due to a disciplinary decision, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition by admitting it.

shall be ruled.

Judge Lee Hon

Judges Dok-hee