부당인사 및 부당감봉 구제재심판정 취소청구의 소
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.
Ⅰ. Examining the facts recognized by the reasoning of the first instance judgment citing the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance, comparison and comparison with the basis for its recognition, the fact-finding of the judgment in the first instance and its-based judgments are justifiable.
This is also the same in addition to the above basis for recognition of the witness Gap evidence No. 10 or Gap evidence No. 15 submitted by the plaintiff in the appellate court.
Accordingly, the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
We examine the main arguments that the plaintiff is repeated or added in the appellate court below.
Ⅱ. The plaintiff's major arguments and the judgment of this court
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that there was technical knowledge, such as the operating principles of machinery or the specific spectrum, in performing the procurement service in accordance with the instant personnel order.
However, even if the Plaintiff did not have such technical awareness and had been engaged in the funding business before the personnel order of this case, such technical knowledge was not required.
The Plaintiff knew that such circumstances were sufficiently speaking to the intervenors that it is inappropriate for the Intervenor to perform the procurement service in accordance with the personnel order of this case, and the Intervenor could also verify such circumstances through the previous personnel research of the Plaintiff.
Nevertheless, the intervenor did not make efforts to find workers more appropriate than the plaintiff and dispatch them to the site, and instead, only issued the instant personnel order to take retaliation against the Plaintiff’s preliminary public interest report.
Therefore, the personnel order and salary reduction of this case are all inappropriate.
2. If the judgment of this court compares and compares the description of the material (Evidence B) prepared by the Plaintiff in the course of performing the procurement of the goods (Evidence B) and the description of the ordering report (Evidence B) prepared by the person in charge of the procurement pursuant to the personnel order of this case, the said material and the ordering report shall be deemed to be an estimate, bidding result, and the terms and conditions of the contract.