정직처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff served in the Maro Project Promotion Group of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and served in the department B of the Regional Development Headquarters from July 1, 2016.
B. On December 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a demotion to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 69(1)3 of the Local Public Officials Act due to the following reasons.
On June 12, 2015, at around 18:30, three persons in the same category of civil engineering work, and three persons who are new female employees in the same series of class of civil engineering work that are first face with the Plaintiff, and the victim in the frequency where they are in a separate place of viewing, the Plaintiff considered him/her to have his/her clothes to the extent that he/she is exposed to shoulder, by forcing him/her to write down his/her body and write his/her hand and her buckbucks while moving to a meeting through singing, and by forcing him/her not to do so.
The plaintiff's act can be regarded as sexual harassment and violates the duty to maintain dignity.
C. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Appeals Commission, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Appeals Commission made a decision to revise the said demotion as a disposition of suspension from office for three months, and notified the Plaintiff of such decision on May 10, 2016.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), 3 months of the suspension from office that has been mitigated (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for recognition”), 5 months of the absence of dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disciplinary action is merely a part of the process of soliciting the victim to feel sexual humiliation and aversion, and did not make the victim feel sexual humiliation or aversion with respect to his duties. Although the statements made by the victim and witness are inconsistent and contradictory, the citizen human rights protection officer belonging to the Defendant who investigated the instant case’s act was determined as sexual harassment by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s disciplinary action was unlawful as it was against the Defendant. 2) The instant disposition of disciplinary action is excessive.