해임처분취소
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. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The mental health doctor and doctor who consulted a victim of an act falling under the grounds for disciplinary action that constitutes the grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to Part 4 of Part 9, which is referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action of this case” in Part 3, 17, as “the grounds for disciplinary action of this case 1,” shall not be a “person having grounds for disciplinary action,” and the disposition of this case may not be a “person having grounds for disciplinary action,” but there are procedural defects by the mental health doctor E professor who consulted the victim as a disciplinary
The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since E professor did not participate in the resolution as a disciplinary committee member in the deliberation procedure of the instant disposition, if the following contents are added to subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 15, and the purport of the whole pleading is added to the statement of No. 5, the following contents are added to the following under Part 6, Paragraph 10, each of the following: "(3) abuse of discretionary power" as "the existence of a disciplinary ground for No. 16 (1)" and "the abuse of discretionary power" as "the abuse of discretionary power" and "the abuse of discretionary power" as "3) abuse of discretionary power" (6) under Part 6, Paragraph 10, the plaintiff argues to the purport that "if the plaintiff intends to punish the plaintiff on the ground that he provided a cause for suicide, it would be unreasonable to take specific facts that can be deemed that he provided a cause for disciplinary action, not a public official's act, as a ground for disciplinary action."
However, in light of all the circumstances, the Disciplinary Reason No. 4 of this case can be seen as representing “the victim’s series of incidents, such as attempted suicide and the victim’s complaint, was caused by the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct, such as gathering of the victim and maintaining a bad faith relationship.”