직위해제 및 해임처분 취소결정 취소
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.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff in the trial does not differ significantly from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the trial is newly examined, the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's claim is justified.
Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for a partial change as follows. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
C. Foods
A. The 6th page “a service contract” in the 9th page is “a service contract (hereinafter “instant existing service contract”), and the 8 and 9th class “ stated” in the 14th class as follows: “The amended service contract was “the instant amendment service contract” and combined the existing and modified service contract in the instant case and “the instant service contract”.
B) On March 2, 2012, the Intervenor signed an internal re-determination document with the qualification of the chief of the general affairs division to pay KRW 33 million as a result of the change in the determination of an urban planning school facility, and paid KRW 3 million to H on March 27, 2012 following the above internal resolution.
“”
(b) from 10 up to 11 pages 12 to 8 are as follows:
(F) On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against I on June 30, 2017, claiming that H or I did not comply with the instant service agreement even though the scope of the instant service agreement includes the duty to authorize implementation plans, and that H or I revoked the instant service agreement on the ground of nonperformance of obligation, and sought the return of KRW 66 million, which is a part of the service cost paid in excess of the original status, and the return of the service cost paid in excess of the original status, and the return of the service cost paid in excess of the original status, on March 27, 2012. However, on October 10, 2018, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was handed down (Seoul District Court 2017dan20872, this case’s judgment).