청탁금지법위반신고 통보 취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a public official in the local administration division B and Taek Viewer B.
B. On January 9, 2017, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission received a report that “The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, including the Plaintiff, and 20 public officials (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) violated the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (hereinafter “Improper Solicitation and Civil Rights Commission”) by providing money and valuables in an amount equivalent to KRW 980,000,000,000, total of KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, collected from each of the previous forms of conference held by C as of December 19, 2016 to C, which was the director of the Taecheon Viewing and Civil Rights Commission B.
C. On March 20, 2017, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission confirmed the matters pertaining to the reporting, pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Improper Solicitation and Civil Rights Commission Act and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, transferred the above reporting case to the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff, etc. is deemed to have violated Article 8(5) of the Improper Solicitation and Civil Rights Commission Act, and thus, it is necessary to investigate
On March 24, 2017, the Defendant issued the notification of the instant violation of the Act (hereinafter “instant notification”) with the content that “The Defendant shall notify the violation of the Act on the Prohibition of Requests, which was transferred by the People’s Rights and Interests Committee, in accordance with Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Prohibition of Requests, and submit the results after implementing necessary matters, such as disciplinary action, imposition of fines for negligence, etc., to the Mayor of Thai City
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. Article 34(1)1 of the Decree on the Appointment of Local Public Officials alleged by the Defendant provides that a public official who is requested to request a disciplinary decision or disciplinary action by the head of the relevant administrative agency shall not be promoted. Thus, the Plaintiff falls under the “request for disciplinary action by the head of the relevant administrative agency” as the notification in this case is subject to promotion.