해임처분취소청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the first instance judgment is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the assertion that the Plaintiff is particularly emphasized by this court, and thus, the same shall be cited as it is,
2. The portion added by this court
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The duty of the police assigned for special guard under the former Regulations on the Police Assigned for Special Guard misleading the scope of the duty of the police assigned for special guard is merely “inspection of the operational state ofCCTV,” and the Plaintiff’s act of breaking CCTV does not constitute a violation of the duty that is subject to disciplinary action. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to include the Plaintiff’s act of releasing CCTV in the instant disposition in the violation of the duty of the police assigned for special guard. 2) The Defendant did not guarantee break time under the Labor Standards Act, such as that the Plaintiff
Therefore, since the plaintiff inevitably sent out due to meals, etc. and sent out time to the outside of the workplace, the plaintiff's refusal to work can not be a ground for disciplinary action due to justifiable reasons.
Therefore, it is unlawful that the Defendant’s act of leaving the Plaintiff’s duty in the instant disposition was a disciplinary cause.
B. Determination 1) In the duties of the police assigned for special guard prescribed in Article 5(2) of the former Regulations on the Police assigned for special guard, the check and measures to prevent the occurrence of dangers in the guard area (Paragraph 3), and patrol activities to protect human life, property, etc. (Paragraph 5, etc.) are included in the security area, in addition to the check of CCTV operational condition (Paragraph 7).
Therefore, the act of the plaintiff, who is a police assigned for special guard, to stop the operation of CCTV to confirm the actual condition of security service, is to prevent the occurrence of danger in the guard area or to neglect the patrol to protect human life and property.