부당대기발령 및 부당해고 구제 재심판정 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's ground of appeal is not different from that of the plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if all evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the first instance trial are examined, it is not recognized or unclear that the intervenor's business needs to issue a standby order to the intervenor because it is difficult to view the plaintiff's "other person unable to perform his duties for any other special reason" under Article 31 subparagraph 7 of the Personnel Management Regulations at the time of the instant standby order. On the other hand, the intervenor was at a disadvantage in his daily life to receive only 80% of the basic salary due to the instant standby order. Since the plaintiff did not provide the intervenor with an opportunity to explain the ground of standby order, the pertinent standby order is unlawful because it goes beyond the scope of legitimate personnel rights, and the fraudulent issuance of a certificate of performance certificate among the grounds of the instant dismissal is not recognized as a ground of disciplinary action, and the remaining grounds of appeal are not legitimate, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal and the judgment of the first instance court are dismissed without any justifiable ground for rejection.