해임처분취소청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. On April 7, 2014, the part concerning Nos. 5 and 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance stating the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) was dismissed under Article 78(1)1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty of Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act as the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the part concerning Nos. 3 and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance stating that “I do not do so.” This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except that “I do so.” This part of the judgment is cited under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The non-existence of the grounds for disciplinary action of this case cited violation of Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Surrendering) and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act. The Plaintiff’s act stated in the grounds for disciplinary action of this case does not constitute such act.
B. Even if the pertinent disciplinary action is inappropriate, each of the instant disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) is an individual privacy, and in light of the developments leading up to the instant disciplinary action and the Plaintiff’s various circumstances, the instant disciplinary action constitutes “where the degree of a violation of a duty is serious and serious, or where the degree of a violation of a duty is weak and gross negligence,” or where “where the degree of a violation of a duty is weak and excessive,” as the instant disciplinary action constitutes “where two or more violations of a duty are concurrent,” the relevant disciplinary action constitutes “where the degree of a violation of a duty is excessive and excessive,” and even if aggravated, it constitutes “where two or more violations of a duty are concurrent.” However, the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action constitutes dismissal, which is excessive compared to the Plaintiff’s misconduct, and thus, should be revoked as it is unlawful and unjust.