징계처분 무효확인 등
1. The Defendant’s disposition of warning at an open meeting against the Plaintiff on May 14, 2015 is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's primary features.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was elected as a member of the 6th local council of Gwangju Metropolitan City, which was implemented on June 4, 2014.
B. On March 13, 2015, the Defendant demanded disciplinary action against the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 36 and 87 of the Local Autonomy Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated his/her duty to maintain dignity, etc.” was against the Defendant.
C. On May 12, 2015, the Defendant resolved on the composition of the Special Committee on Ethics consisting of seven members except the chairman at the first plenary session of the 233rd extraordinary session held on May 12, 2015. On the same day, the Defendant held the first meeting of the Special Committee on Ethics and appointed C as the chairperson and D as an executive secretary.
On May 13, 2015, the second meeting of the Special Committee on Ethics was held on May 13, 2015, and as a result of the examination of disciplinary action against the plaintiff, the decision was made to suspend attendance for 20 days.
E. On May 14, 2015, the Defendant presented a proposal for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff at the plenary session of the 233th extraordinary session held on May 14, 2015, and presented an opinion that disciplinary action against the Plaintiff should be decided at an open meeting, and then the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was declared “a warning at an open meeting” pursuant to Article 88(1)1 of the Local Autonomy Act.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition had procedural substantive defects as follows, and that defect is serious and clear, thus seeking nullification of the instant disposition, and sought revocation of the instant disposition in preliminary order even if the said defect is not serious and clear.
1) Although the Defendant did not give prior notice of procedural defects and giving an opportunity to present opinions, the Defendant either constitutes a Special Committee on Ethics or makes a resolution on disciplinary action at the plenary session.