정직처분 취소청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff is appointed as the 10th class of the post office on September 13, 1993, and from May 1, 2003 to the B post office mail.
The Plaintiff was newly appointed to C post office as of September 13, 1993, and from May 1, 2003 to May 1, 2003, all public officials are in charge of office distribution at B post office, comply with the relevant statutes, and faithfully perform their duties, but there was a loss of 10 copies of registered mail (hereinafter “instant mail”) on September 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”), and without reporting the fact of the loss to his superior, there was a false registration of the result of the delivery of mail (hereinafter “instant second disciplinary ground”), and caused a false civil petition from the addressee on September 23, 2015.
B. On November 23, 2015, the Defendant issued a three-month disposition of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “the first disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the initial disposition and filed a petition review on December 18, 2015, and the Minister of Personnel Management mitigated the initial disposition on March 14, 2016 as “two months in suspension from office.”
(hereinafter referred to as the above, the disposition of suspension from office for two months reduced or exempted (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. During the Plaintiff’s argument, the instant mail was lost while the Plaintiff was performing an excessive collection work, and the head of the team team on the same day reported the loss of the said mail to D, and the Plaintiff’s use of annual leave on the following day after the Plaintiff’s loss of the instant mail was not intended to cover up the loss of the Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the Plaintiff’s new training training hall, and the Plaintiff’s use of the instant mail.