A. On April 12, 199, the Plaintiff was appointed as B on October 1, 2013, and promoted to C on October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff served as the head of the F Korean Cultural Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the cultural center of this case”) of the F Korean Embassy located in D through E (hereinafter referred to as “F”) in charge of cultural promotion activities as the presiding official of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “ Embassy”), F. F. F.F. cultural promotion activities in F.F. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea”), the promotion of cultural exchange between Korea and F.F., and the operation of Korean cultural lectures.

B. During the period of the Plaintiff’s work as the head of the instant cultural center, the instant cultural center had been engaged in an administrative, budgetary, and personnel management (from October 1, 2012 to 1), three employees of the Republic of Korea, including J (from March 2013) who are in charge of performance and exhibition planning, K (from June 201 to June 201), who are in charge of external cooperation and F Exchange projects (from November 201 to 7, 208, hereinafter referred to as “M”), and N. 1, who is in charge of large media activities (hereinafter referred to as “0” from April 208 to 1, 207; hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s internal title”). From 2013 to 1.5 to 200 to 200 to 3.0 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 2.

D. On April 6, 2018, based on the audit results of the instant audit, the Defendant requested the Central Disciplinary Committee to adopt a heavy disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff. On July 20, 2018, the Central Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the grounds for disciplinary action stated in [Attachment 1] exist against the Plaintiff, and that it violates Article 56, 58, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78(1)1 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act. Accordingly, on August 9, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be dismissed on August 13, 2018 (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”). The Plaintiff claimed for an appeal against the instant dismissal to the Ministry of Personnel Management, but the said Committee dismissed it on December 6, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 19, 27, 90, Eul evidence 9 and 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dismissal disposition of this case is legitimate

A. Relevant statutes

[Attachment 2] The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

(b) the existence of reasons for action;

(i) the existence of disciplinary action 1-1

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the early retirement from office on December 8, 2017 among the grounds for the disciplinary action is not recognized as of December 13, 2017, from office as of December 13, 2017, from office and early retirement as of December 18, 2017, from office as of December 26, 2017, from office as of January 4, 2018, from office as of January 5, 2018, from office as of January 5, 2018, from office as of January 8, 2018, from office as of January 18, 2018, from office as of January 18, 2018, and from office as of January 25, 2018.

(1) On December 8, 2017, each Plaintiff visited V using the urban railroad at the request of the director-general of the bureau affiliated to A.V. on December 8, 2017 and received the delivery of the W progress and the cooperation of Korea, and then visited the Embassy nearby V to report it to the Ambassador.

(2) On December 13, 2017, the instant cultural center, absent from office on the outside shopping mall on December 13, 2017, proceeded with the promotional event for the Olympic Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Games in the outdoor plaza located in the outside shopping mall. On the same day, the Plaintiff was unable to participate in the event that employees could participate in the event. On the same day, the Plaintiff prepared five National Assembly members visits belonging to the Information Committee of the National Assembly scheduled National Assembly at around 14:00 on the following day while working at the instant cultural center, and sent the documents, such as the report on the status of duties, as revised at around 17:20 on the following day.

(3) On December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff visited X, a complex culture and arts space located in G City, using the urban railroad on December 18, 2017, and conducted an interview with related persons and personnel in her duties. The Plaintiff returned to the instant cultural institute after her earing personnel, and served at the Embassy on the same day, and sent five copies of 16:40 through 18:56 to the Republic of Korea (foreign documents). (4) On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff was absent from the Embassy on December 25, 2017, upon receiving the application for leave from the Embassy to December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted the application for leave from the consul on December 26, 2017 to the Korean Cultural Institute on December 26, 2017, and submitted the application for leave from the consul on December 26, 2017 to December 29, 2017.

(5) On January 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was absent from office on January 4, 2018, and was absent from office at the Embassy using the urban railroad and arranged for the transfer to Korea.

(6) On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff absent from office on January 5, 2018: (a) returned the official vehicle to a bank near the Embassy to the instant cultural center using a public vehicle; (b) processed the business of transferring the official vehicle to the instant cultural center; and (c) visited the Embassy to the Embassy and arranged it in accordance with the return to Korea.

(7) On January 8, 2018, the Plaintiff appeared at the Embassy on January 8, 2018, and returned the official vehicle to the instant cultural center, and attended the Staff conference, and worked at the Embassy by the time of retirement.

(8) On January 18, 2018, each Plaintiff, on January 18, 2018, returned to the 1st and second floor of the instant cultural center in relation to the “AAA City event to be held in the P.M.” to conduct an event inspection. On the P.M., the Plaintiff, on the 18th of 2018, returned to the 1st of the instant cultural center in relation to the “DA City event to be held in the P.M.,” and on the oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of oth of

(9) On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff retired from the post on January 24, 2018 (the receipt of diplomatic items at a public port and delivery of them to the Embassy) and then retired from the post at home in a normal early fashion.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff’s regular working hours are from 08:30 to 17:00 on the basis of F local working hours. While serving as the head of the cultural center, the Plaintiff resided in an official residence near the instant cultural center.

(2) The instant cultural center is nearby the AE Station, which is an urban railroad operated by F Company AC (hereinafter “the instant urban railroad”). On the first floor of the instant cultural center, “AF alone,” the cultural center’s office working for the Plaintiff, the office of the head of the cultural center, the office of the employee, the office of the general office, and the second floor of the cultural center. At the time, the employees of the instant cultural center, except U.S., who are the driver of public vehicles, worked at the instant cultural center. On the other hand, on the second floor of the Embassy located near the AG Station, the urban railroad stations of the instant cultural center, the consular office, etc., along with the general consul office (hereinafter “instant office”). AE Station and the AG Station may move through the instant urban railroad without any event to move to the 2nd floor.

(3) The Plaintiff worked at the instant cultural center, mainly in the conference of ordinary times, and visited the Embassy in the event of various meetings, such as staff meetings held by the Embassy and staff members, and other related persons, such as events held in the vicinity of the Embassy and the Embassy, the receipt and dispatch of technical documents, and the submission of administrative documents, such as the transfer of goods, such as official cell phones, and the transfer of goods, such as dispatch of duties, and the application for leave, etc., related to the Embassy, and the duties related to the F agency, such as V adjacent to the Embassy. The Plaintiff visited the Embassy, and used the instant office at that time. If the Embassy had duties related to the Embassy, the Plaintiff used the instant cultural center without going to work at the Embassy. The Plaintiff used the instant cultural center’s official vehicle when moving to the Embassy, but the instant urban railroad was also used, as a case.

(4) In accordance with the instruction of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, the employees of the instant cultural center, from December 7, 2017 to January 26, 2018, recorded the Plaintiff’s work performance (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s work performance record”) and recorded the Plaintiff’s work performance in the register of commuting to and from work (attached Form 1; hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s work attendance record”) in the register of commuting to and from work (attached Form 1).

(5) The established rules on the service and disciplinary action of state public officials (Ordinance No. 39 of the Ministry of Personnel Management) stipulate, each of the following as "work hours after the start-up of work at a place without good cause", "work leave before the start-up of work", and "work leave does not leave until the end of work without good cause, such as business trip, leave, etc.".

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry, the whole purport of pleadings, and evidence Nos. 7, 9, 10 through 12, 15, 19, 34, 38, 40, 45 through 47, 49, 56, 60, 61, 63, 64, 82, 94, 107, 126, and Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 22 (including the number of each branch number)

C) Relevant legal principles and the premise of discussion

(1) An appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition has the burden of proof as to whether the pertinent disposition is lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du12937, Jan. 12, 2007) to the Defendant, who is the disposition agency claiming the lawfulness of the pertinent disposition

(2) In the instant audit process, where it is confirmed that the Plaintiff had not worked at the Embassy during its working hours, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to vindicate what kind of work the Plaintiff handled and to submit relevant explanatory materials. In the event that the Plaintiff explained that he had worked at another place, such as Embassy, the Defendant determined that there is no justifiable ground for absence in the instant audit process, in the absence of objective data that the Plaintiff had worked at other places, such as Embassy, on the ground that there is no details consistent with the Plaintiff’s explanation on the log (No. B. 11-2; hereinafter referred to as “the log of public vehicle”), Embassy’s year and illness, and Embassy’s duty table, etc.

(3) The register of commuting appears to be recorded by the employees of the instant cultural center from time to time, and the Plaintiff’s attendance and retirement hours are written in detail on a unit of minutes. The special director’s call includes the Plaintiff’s external schedule, whether the Plaintiff was given leave, and the Plaintiff’s actions to be problematic on a specific date. In light of the aforementioned details, the Plaintiff’s commuting register may be recorded as materials to record the Plaintiff’s entry into and departure from the instant cultural center, and the Plaintiff’s office position within the instant cultural center. However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff left the place of work without permission if the Plaintiff did not appear at the same time at the instant cultural center and the Embassy, but it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was absent from work without permission on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit supporting materials supporting the Plaintiff’s work at the Embassy, barring any special circumstances.

(A) The Plaintiff worked as the head of the Embassy, and the Embassy took charge of cultural interest as its representative position, and the Embassy had the instant office used by the Plaintiff.

(B) The Plaintiff appears to have visited the Embassy considerably frequently due to not only the duties directly related to the Embassy, such as various meetings, interviews, and attendance at events, including the Staff conference held in each week, but also the duties related to V, etc., which are closely related to the instant cultural center, compared to the Embassy.

(C) It is not deemed that there was an employee managing the Plaintiff’s schedule at the instant cultural center. In the event that the Plaintiff did not notify the employees of the instant cultural center of the Plaintiff while going to the Embassy, the employees may recognize that the Plaintiff left the place of service without permission and omitted the records of the special director’s port (as mentioned in the following, the Plaintiff entered the date of early retirement on December 18, 2017), but the Plaintiff is also confirmed to have dispatched the expertise from the Embassy to the Embassy on December 18, 2017.

(D) The AE Station in which the instant cultural center is located and the AG Station with the Embassy will pass through only two stations without transfer when using the instant urban railroad. Therefore, the Plaintiff is also a factor to use the instant urban railroad, not a public vehicle, by taking into account traffic congestion, the schedule before and after the Embassy visit, etc.

(E) The Embassy basically constitutes a state facility where security is maintained thoroughly. Since the office of this case is located in the Embassy, the Defendant is in the position to secure objective data to verify the Plaintiff’s work process through the Plaintiff’s Embassy entry records, connection records such as the internal network, etc., and the Embassy staff’s investigation, etc.

D) Specific determination

(1) In light of the legal principles seen earlier as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s early retirement from office as of December 8, 2017; the early retirement from office as of December 18, 2017; the absence as of January 26, 2017; the absence as of January 4, 2018; the early retirement from office as of January 5, 2018; the absence as of January 8, 2018; the early retirement from office as of January 13, 2017; however, the Plaintiff’s early retirement from office as of December 13, 2017; the absence as of December 18, 2017; the Plaintiff’s early retirement from office as of December 18, 2017; and the early retirement from office as of January 25, 2018.

(A) According to the local commuting register of December 8, 2017, the Plaintiff was found to have arrived at the instant cultural center around December 8, 2017, but the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) visited the Embassy on the same day to make a report on the state of the progress and the matters of cooperation in Korea to the Ambassador; (b) there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff did not appear at the Embassy; and (c) there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was dismissed on the same day.

(B) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 38, 54, and 56 from office on December 13, 2017, the Plaintiff sent the message to the Mesenger in relation to the contents to be stated in the report to K on December 13, 2017, and sent the message to 15:06 I on the same day to 15:06 I at the time when the lease agreement on the building of the instant cultural center was terminated; the members of the Intelligence Committee of the National Assembly visited the instant cultural center on December 12, 2017; the Plaintiff’s visit around 14:00 on December 14, 2017; the Plaintiff’s “documents No. 17125, Dec. 16: 44, 2017; and each of the “documents No. 1721, Dec. 17: 14, 2017”

However, the Plaintiff stated that he did not have access to the instant cultural center on December 13, 2017 (the Plaintiff asserted that all employees on the pertinent day were unable to record the details of the Plaintiff’s access due to the failure to enter the instant cultural center; on the same day, there was an external event to the instant cultural center; and on the same day, it stated that “I and K were in the instant cultural center until 12:00, but did not appear before the Plaintiff; however, it is difficult to deem that all employees other than the Plaintiff were absent from the cultural center of this case, and there is no other evidence to regard otherwise). ② Documents asserted that the Plaintiff prepared on December 13, 2017 by all employees on the instant cultural center were the o’clock on December 14, 2017, and were confirmed on December 13, 2017, the Plaintiff was absent from the work on December 13, 2017.

(C) On December 18, 2017, each Plaintiff of the instant cultural center and the Embassy on December 18, 2017 is a person who has not been located in the instant cultural center and the Embassy on December 18, 2017. According to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 57 and 58, although it is recognized that the F AI is a person related to the Plaintiff, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had met AI in relation to the duties of the instant cultural center on December 18, 2017. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is presumed to have been dismissed on December 18, 2017.

(D) On December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff, at the early retirement from the Embassy around December 18, 2017, consulted with YA, a person involved in the work, with YA, and on the same day, the Plaintiff asserted that YA had performed the duties of sending a medical specialist at the Embassy on the same day. According to each of the evidence Nos. 5 through 7, the Plaintiff: (i) divided YA into Z and Z and Z, and divided the work-related dialogue on December 18, 2017; (ii) it was recognized that the Plaintiff dispatched five specialized items (such as “Submission of a monthly work report of the instant cultural institute” at the Embassy from 16:40 to 18:56 on the same day, and accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff worked at the Embassy from the same day to the time after the said date. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff retired from the Embassy early December 18, 2017.

(E) Even based on the written resolution on absence from office (Evidence A2) on December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff worked at the instant cultural center on December 14:40, 2017, and was retired from office 15:02 on the same day. According to this, the Plaintiff cannot be said to have been absent from office on December 26, 2017, since he/she worked at the instant cultural center, which is the working place on December 26, 2017, and was retired from office.

Furthermore, it is deemed that the Plaintiff was able to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff was 1 on December 26, 2017 and was 2.1 on December 26, 201. The Embassy Plan (No. 11-3) and the schedule No. 61 on December 26, 2017 that the Plaintiff was 20 on December 27, 201, and that the Plaintiff was 27 on December 27, 201, on the following grounds: (i) the Plaintiff was sent to the Embassy No. 106 on December 26, 201; (ii) the Plaintiff was 1-6 on December 25, 2017, on the 20th 6th 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 7th 2nd 1st 7th 1st 206th 2nd 1st 1st 206th 2nd 2017. 2nd 26th 2017.

(f) The Plaintiff, who was absent on January 4, 2018 and January 5, 2018, was absent from office, is a person who did not enter the instant cultural center on January 4, 2018 and January 5, 2018. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was performing the duties of arranging goods, etc. in preparation for returning to Korea at the Embassy on each of the above dates, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was absent from office on each of the above dates.

(G) According to the register of commuting to and from work of January 8, 2018, the Plaintiff visited the instant cultural center on or around 13:00 on January 8, 2018, but was recognized as having left the instant cultural center on or around 13:10 on the same day, but the Plaintiff asserted that he had worked at the Embassy on the same day, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was absent at the Embassy, and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having proved that he was retired early from work on the same day.

(h) On January 18, 2018, each Plaintiff was a person who did not work at the Embassy on January 18, 2018, and according to the register of commuting to and from work, the Plaintiff was found to have arrived at the instant cultural center on the same day, and thus, the Plaintiff is presumed to have dismissed on January 18, 2018. According to the written evidence Nos. 41, 42, and 64, the Plaintiff was found to have left the instant cultural center on the same day for the contact with National Assembly members, and there is no other evidence to reverse the order.

(E) On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff is the person who was early retired at the instant cultural center as of January 25, 2018. The Plaintiff asserted that there is justifiable grounds for early retirement. According to Gap evidence No. 15, the Plaintiff is aware that he/she had performed so-called work and home-based work on January 24, 2018, which is the preceding day. However, even if he/she is somewhat excessive work as the Plaintiff’s assertion, early retirement is not justified. ② Article 14(2) of the former Service Rule of State Public Officials (amended by Ordinance No. 1494, Oct. 31, 2018) provides that “The head of an agency at all levels shall be exempt from the duty to early leave of absence on the same date (excluding those who were on night duty), and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been subject to early leave of absence on the same 20th day (excluding those who were on night duty).”

(3) Ultimately, among the grounds for disciplinary action under this part, the absence from office on December 13, 2017, i.e., g., 15 December 15, 2017, i.e., g., g., December 18, 2017, absence from office on January 9, 2018, absence from office on January 10, 2018, leave of absence on January 11, 2018, leave of absence on January 12, 2018, leave of absence on January 15, 2018, leave of absence on January 16, 2018, leave of absence on January 16, 2018, leave of absence on January 18, 2018, leave of absence on January 19, 2018, and the Plaintiff’s ground for disciplinary action on January 16, 2018.

(ii) the existence of reasons for disciplinary action 1-2

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

In the event that the plaintiff starts immediately from an embassy to attend a meeting held at an embassy in the morning, and the plaintiff goes to the embassy prior to attending the official event, there was a case where he goes to work at the embassy using the urban railroad of this case and let U U move to the embassy, but there was no fact that the plaintiff ordered U and public vehicles to go to other places, such as an embassy or embassy, without attending the embassy.

B) Specific determination

(1) Although there is no need to strictly specify the facts charged under the Criminal Procedure Act to the extent that the disciplinary action is required, it should be specified to the extent that at least the person subject to the disciplinary action can be aware of the occurrence of the disciplinary action by any misconduct, and such disciplinary action cannot be said to have been specified in the extent that the lack of a specific nature may seriously interfere with the exercise of

Ex officio, this part of the Disciplinary Reason does not specify the date when the plaintiff instructs U to wait for public vehicles without permission ("30~40 times or more"), accurate place ("official residence or other place"), and the plaintiff's official vehicle refers to U to the employee of the cultural center of this case who works in the office of work and does not specify the date when he instructs U to go to the official office or the Embassy. Considering the working period of the cultural center of this case (D) of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's statement or explanation was practically impossible in the disciplinary procedure except for a remote rebuttal, and the plaintiff is asserting that there was no abstract fact in the lawsuit of this case. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Reason of this part is not specifically defined, which causes a significant impediment to the plaintiff's exercise of his right to defense, and thus, it cannot be deemed a cause for disciplinary action.

(2) Even if this ground for disciplinary action is specified, there is a statement that conforms to the ground for disciplinary action in this part in the letter of confirmation prepared by U in the audit process of this case (Evidence No. 7). However, the above letter of confirmation is written in Korean and F language after hearing the statement from U in this U, and written in the letter that "the contents of the pertinent part were sufficiently explained in F language with respect to the contents of the above letter of confirmation" in the Korean language and F language, and then I signed by U in this part. There is no circumstance to see that U in F nationality has the ability to read and understand the Korean language as stated in the above letter of confirmation, and ② there is no question as to whether U in the above letter of confirmation is accurately understood after understanding the contents because it does not contain any original statement written in F language, and ③ there is no other evidence to acknowledge the ground for disciplinary action in this part.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

(iii) the existence of reasons for disciplinary action 1-3

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

In the process of planning an event, the Plaintiff visited a shopping mall in the event where a restaurant does not hold meals, etc., and where a restaurant does so at the remaining time, most exceptional cases are that the Plaintiff visited to perform his/her duties as the head of the cultural center. In particular, the AL department visited around December 8, 2016 by the Plaintiff at the instant cultural center at around 16:30, the Plaintiff was a place where the Plaintiff visited the Plaintiff for the purpose of gambling, etc. among his/her duties. At the time, the Plaintiff purchased an electronic stamp to be used while residing in F, and then she was assisted by U because it was difficult to transport the Plaintiff mixed.

B) Specific determination

(1) Around 16:36, December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was a person who visited AL department stores to purchase electronic stamps, and this does not constitute an inevitable private work that should be performed during the working hours, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have violated Articles 56 and 58 of the State Public Officials Act, since he did not obtain approval from his superior, such as Ambassador, etc. in the process. Of the grounds for disciplinary action, the above part is recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

(2) However, in the case of the remainder of the grounds for the disciplinary action on December 8, 2016, excluding the portion of the department store shopping, the specific date, time, circumstance, etc. of leaving the place of work without permission are not specified, and as seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge credibility other than the written confirmation (No. 7) prepared by U.S., which makes it impossible to recognize credibility. Thus, it cannot be deemed a justifiable ground for the disciplinary action.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

4) Whether grounds for disciplinary action 2-1 exist

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

In the instant cultural center, the invitation letter inviting the president of the F to each institution of the F is the average of 20 to 30 pages each week, and the plaintiff ordered M to answer this issue, and if not, M was omitted. Furthermore, the event Nos. 4 [Attachment 2] is not the event invitation letter, [Attachment 2] is not the event invitation letter, [Attachment 2] is the [Attachment 2], [Attachment 2], the event Nos. 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 2] annually, [Attachment 2], the event Nos. 9,10, 13, 14, 15 are the attendance of the plaintiff or other person at the Embassy, [Attachment 2], and the event Nos. 4 and 6 are not the event of the instant cultural center.

B) Specific determination

(1) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, it is recognized that M in charge of responding to the invitation letter as a person in charge of external exchange and cooperation was prepared in the instant audit process with the purport that "the plaintiff did not give any answer when sending the invitation letter to other agencies, such as V and AM, or did not inform him/her of how to respond separately." However, in light of the plaintiff's above assertion, it is insufficient to recognize that the document prepared by the above M was not submitted by the plaintiff to the invitation letter of individual events listed in [Attachment 1] [Attachment 2], and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff did not reply to the invitation letter of individual events listed in the [Attachment 1] [Attachment 2], according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, M is in charge of external cooperation and F exchange projects at the instant cultural center, and the Plaintiff had M answer to the invitation letter. The instant cultural center recognizes that at least 20 invitation letter arrive at each week, and even if the Plaintiff did not give specific instructions as to whether to reply to the individual invitation letter and to respond to the contents thereof, M who was instructed by the Plaintiff, the head of the institution, as the Plaintiff, can report the invitation letter to the Plaintiff and receive the Plaintiff’s instructions, and thus, the Plaintiff did not give specific instructions as to the individual invitation letter. The fact that the Plaintiff did not immediately fall under the grounds for disciplinary action, such as violation of good faith.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

(v) the existence of reasons for disciplinary action 2-2, 2-3

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) The Plaintiff was normally present at the instant cultural center in 2016 and 2017, which was organized by the instant cultural center. The reason for the disciplinary action in Article 2-2 is that the Plaintiff could not move from the hotel to the venue at the time of the event and remains in the mixed hotel during the event. However, the reason for the disciplinary action in this part is not recognized.

(2) In 2017, the Plaintiff visited a middle or high school located in FO located in the area of the FO located in the North East East East East East East Eastern District. Although there was no preference for school events, the Plaintiff proposed to do so on the last day of the event. The Plaintiff is highly likely to cause the financial burden on the part of the school, and it cannot be deemed grounds for disciplinary action.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) The instant cultural center, each year, was held under the name “AP” from June 15 to June 17, 2016, and from June 26, 2017 to June 29, 2017, in finding schools in F local small cities, to inform various Korean culture and to provide an opportunity to experience.

(2) The employees of the instant cultural center, including the Plaintiff and Q, participated in the aforementioned events.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 71 through 74, the purport of the whole pleadings

C) Specific determination

(1) 이 부분 징계사유를 뒷받침하는 증거는 Q이 이 사건 감사 과정에서 작성한 확인서(을 제6호증)가 유일한데, 위 확인서에는 "Avoid meeting new people"이라는 제목 하에 제2-2징계사유에 부합하는 진술이, "Last minute cancellation for appointment"라는 제목 하에 제2-3징계사유에 부합하는 진술이 각 한국어로 기재되어 있기는 하다. 그러나 위 확인서는 이 Q으로부터 진술을 청취하여 그 내용을 한국어로 기재하고 말미에 '위 확인서의 내용에 대해 I으로부터 F어로 설명을 충분히 들었다'는 취지의 문장을 한국어 및 F어로 기재한 후 Q의 서명을 받고, I도 통역인으로 서명을 한 것으로서, F 국적의 Q이 위 확인서의 한국어 문장을 이해할 수 있는 능력이 있다고 볼만한 증거가 없고, 위 확인서에 Q이 한 원 발언 내용이 기재되어 있지 않아 Q이 그 내용을 온전히 이해하고 서명한 것인지 의문이 들며, I의 번역 과정에서의 오류 가능성도 있기 때문에 신빙할 수 없다.

(2) Even if the above confirmation document is reliable, if the plaintiff, the head of the agency, determined that it is unnecessary to hold the event at the time of the event, the following circumstances, i.e., (1) the plaintiff, who is the head of the agency, cannot be found to have shown the situation at the time of the event at which the plaintiff's event was held at the time of 2016 and 2017. Thus, it is difficult to immediately deem that the ground for disciplinary action was a ground for disciplinary action merely because the plaintiff did not hold a certain event at the time of the event at the event at the time of 2016 and 2017. (2) There is no evidence to deem that Q's certificate was revoked by the plaintiff as a formal schedule for the event at Q, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's exercise was an occupational error on the ground that he revoked the suddenly supported schedule during the event. In light of the above, this part of the ground for

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

(vi) the existence of reasons for disciplinary action 2-4

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) On April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff, along with M in charge of interpretation, divided conversations with the Director of the National Library and the Director of the National Library who is able to English at an interview with the Director of the F National Library on April 21, 2015, and made a speech not related to the agenda, or kids while the Director of the National Library makes a speech.

There is no fact that an act was conducted.

(2) On September 17, 2015, the Director-General of AM visited the instant cultural center, and the Plaintiff opened only the sponsors to which the Director-General, the citizens, etc. attend at the Han-gu cafeteria. The event was not a scheduled schedule in advance, and the Plaintiff’s participation in the event was excessive, and the Plaintiff’s return home first after calculating the meal cost around 21:04 on the same day.

(3) On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff, at the shopping mall, provided a staff member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and provided an opinion to the effect that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to visit the Republic of Korea from 8 employees of the F museum that the Plaintiff requested by the staff member of the F museum, but did not answer any question and answer different from that of questioning. In addition, the Plaintiff attached a shos as at the time of the above shos to the shos, and newly sent a shokeel, and sought understanding from the shos, and did not participate in the visit to the museum after the shos.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) On March 31, 2015, the president of the National Library requested the head of the instant cultural promotion center to identify and change the current status of operation of the National Library established in F in the instant cultural promotion center. Accordingly, on April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff met with the head of the national library affiliated with V, who was present in English and F language as an interpreter, and the Plaintiff exchanged with the head of the national library and the English language during the conversation.

(2) On September 17, 2015, AR, the Director General of AM, visited the instant cultural center. After the completion of the visiting event, the Plaintiff was holding only the instant cultural center in a restaurant near the instant cultural center, and the Plaintiff, AR, M, etc. was present at the said meeting. On the same day, the Plaintiff calculated food expenses around 21:04, and returned a text message to the staff of the instant cultural center and returned home.

(3) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs proposed an event to be visited Korea around June 2016 by eight persons, including the F museum employees, at the level of exchange between F and Korea’s museum. The Plaintiff, M, etc. discussed, around January 21, 2016, a related person of the F Ministry of Foreign Affairs, such as AS, at the shopping mall restaurant in G City around G City, on matters related to the exchange of the museum. At the time, the Plaintiff was unable to participate in the event on the ground that the event was AT (the Museum) after the completion of the commission.

(4) During the instant audit and inspection process, M was very inappropriate for the Plaintiff to conduct a meeting with high-ranking persons or organizations. For example, the F National Library head and the F National Library’s Corner. However, the F National Library’s agenda was related to the F National Library’s c. When the Plaintiff’s interpretation was conducted, he c.i.e., the Plaintiff c., c., and c., c., at the F’s c.m. when c., the Plaintiff c., and c., at the F’s c.m., he c., c., during the instant cultural center, c., after the F Tourism Industry opened the Korean language curriculum for employees of the F Tourism Industry, c.i., during the instant c., during the instant c., the Plaintiff c., on the grounds that c., during the instant c.m., the Plaintiff had continued to attend a meeting at the AM and Han c., on the other occasions, the Plaintiff’s reply and c.

[Reasons for Recognition] Specific Determination of Gap's Evidence Nos. 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, Eul's Evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

In light of the following circumstances, the above facts revealed by adding up the evidence No. 80 No. 80, this part of the grounds for disciplinary action is not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

(1) The written confirmation of M is that there is a statement to the effect that it conforms to the grounds for the disciplinary action in this part. However, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s act of making a speech that is not related to the unsatising agenda at the time of an interview with the Director of the National Library on April 21, 2015 falls under the subjective evaluation of M on the Plaintiff’s horse; (b) there is no evidence to confirm the contents of conversation specifically made by the Plaintiff and the Director of the National Library at the time of the interview; and (c) the Plaintiff’s act of taking advantage of the circumstances and frequency at the time of the Plaintiff’s interview and the relation between the Plaintiff and the Director of the National Library at the time of the interview with the Director of the National Library, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s act was inappropriate to the extent that the Plaintiff’s act was caused as a diplomat at the time of interview with the Director of the National Library at the time of the National Library on April 21, 2015.

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff calculated food expenses and returned home on September 17, 2015 from AM’s AR and Ma, but the above events constitute an official event of the instant cultural center. Even if there is no evidence to deem that the above events constitute an official event, the above events do not seem to have been determined separately during the closing time, and the Plaintiff had already been 21:04 hours at the time of returning home, and ② the Plaintiff notified the employees who had been on the supporting place of his returning home, and thus, cannot be deemed to constitute an inappropriate body as a diplomat, in light of the following: (a) there is no evidence to deem that the above events constitute an official event.

(3) Of the written confirmation of M, the part that the Plaintiff engaged in a speech that is not related to the holding agenda at the time when he/she agreed with the F Ministry of Foreign Affairs on January 21, 2016 constitutes a subjective evaluation of M with respect to the horses made by the Plaintiff, but it is difficult to deem that there was an inappropriate response by the Plaintiff solely based on the written confirmation of M because there is no evidence to confirm the conversation between the Plaintiff and AS at the time. Furthermore, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was slved at the time of January 21, 2016, and was not present at a museum visit event originally planned, but the Plaintiff asserted that he/she engaged in the above behavior due to the injury that occurred at the time, and the official document (Evidence A No. 80) which appears to have been prepared by the Plaintiff after his/her initial approval indicates that the Plaintiff was not present in the museum witness due to the injury caused by the cause for the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to constitute an inappropriate correspondence of a diplomat.

(vii) the existence of reasons for disciplinary action 3-1;

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Although the safety and security of tourists are duties with the Embassy, the instant cultural center is carrying out the duties of ascertaining tourism statistics and managing special staff members, and shall closely cooperate with the Embassy consul in the process of such duties. The Embassy in such a relationship shall share a letter of convening AM’s conference to the instant cultural center and instruct K to attend the relevant meeting, and shall not be deemed grounds for disciplinary action.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) On August 22, 2016, AM sent an official door to the Embassy, which is held from “AM to August 25, 2016, to the Embassy’s conference related to the safety and security of tourists.” At the same time, the Embassy sent the above official door to the instant cultural center. Accordingly, the Plaintiff responded to the Embassy’s scheduled attendance at the Embassy, and on August 25, 2016, the Embassy took measures to allow K to attend the said conference. (2) On August 25, 2016, K participated in the instant audit process, at the Plaintiff’s instruction, around two months after the date of entry into the said audit process, and around 13:00, the pertinent work was sent to the Embassy, and the Plaintiff was also co-owned. At the same time, the Embassy and the Plaintiff did not have to attend the said conference until the Embassy arrive at the Embassy conference and the Plaintiff did not have any need to attend the said conference.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 121, 122, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

C) Specific determination

As seen earlier, at around 13:00 on August 25, 2016, the consul and staff of the Embassy told K to the effect that the said conference was not related to the instant cultural center. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing facts are as follows: (a) the conference is sent at the Embassy to the instant cultural center; (b) the theme of the conference is called “tourism’s safety and security-related meetings; (c) it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent theme is completely irrelevant to the instant cultural center, which performs tourism statistics and special strike; and (d) the possibility that the contents related to other duties of the instant cultural center could not be discussed during the conference cannot be ruled out, solely on the basis of the foregoing facts alone, to the extent that the grounds for disciplinary action are inappropriate. Therefore, this part of the grounds for disciplinary action is not recognized as justifiable grounds.

(viii) the existence of disciplinary action 3-2

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

AV Corporation designated 1, the only Korean male employee working at the instant cultural center, and ordered the Plaintiff to perform the AV Corporation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s order to perform the AV Corporation does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action.

B) Specific determination

(1) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, it is recognized that "I prepared a confirmation document stating that "I, in the course of the instant audit, was "AX" hosted by "AW" on May 30, 2015, "AY opening ceremony hosted by AY from August 15, 2015 to August 17, 2015", and "AY opening ceremony" hosted by "AZ" on behalf of the plaintiff during the conduct of construction work on behalf of the plaintiff."

(2) However, there is no reason to deem that the Plaintiff had a duty to directly attend and perform construction works on the part of the Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff instructed the Plaintiff to conduct construction works on the part of a business trip, such as the grounds for the instant disciplinary action, barring such circumstances as the Plaintiff’s instruction was very urgent to the extent that it is impossible to prepare a business trip, or that the Plaintiff’s business instruction was inappropriate to the extent that the Plaintiff’s business instruction was likely to cause the cause for the disciplinary action.

(3) Therefore, the grounds for the instant disciplinary action are not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

(ix) the existence of reasons for disciplinary action 3-3

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff, as the president of the instant cultural center, may, if necessary, have a journalist interview or meeting, etc. attend on behalf of the president of the cultural center. In other cases, the Plaintiff directly participated in an important news media interview or meeting, etc., and, in other cases, notified the employees of the instant cultural center of the anticipated question and answer. [Attachment 1] event No. 1] recorded [Attachment 3] was an event to show a public performance by inviting the number of people at the instant cultural center, and to hold the number of women’s clothes and photographs together. In order to promote a single-use program, the Plaintiff was allowed to have the male employees of the instant cultural center participate in the interview and to participate in the interview with the reporters. In addition, in the event of two events once a year, the Plaintiff had an interview or pop-up interview, the Plaintiff did not respond to all of the Plaintiff due to the lack of time for coverage of news gathering, and the Plaintiff continued to have an interview with the news gathering staff of the instant cultural center, and the Plaintiff did not directly appear in the process of the interview and other news gathering.

B) Specific determination

(1) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, when this case’s " during the audit process of this case’s cultural center, the request for coverage related to the event and the request for an interview of the head of cultural center have been made through this process. Although the Plaintiff responded to the interview, if the event is on the day, the Plaintiff does not go through the interview and instructs other employees to conduct an interview. In this case, the Plaintiff shall be given prior notice of the interview and share questions, but the Plaintiff shall be given notice of the interview before the ordinary interview without any preparation. The Plaintiff shall be given notice that he/she should act on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s interview [Attachment 1] written in [Attachment 1] shall be recognized.

(2) However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts alone do not constitute a justifiable ground for disciplinary action. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

(A) The Plaintiff is a person who, as stated in the grounds for the disciplinary action in this part (attached Form 1) [Attachment 3], provides that I or K shall comply with the Plaintiff’s interview on behalf of the Plaintiff. However, there is no reason to deem that the Plaintiff is obligated to comply with any request for an interview related to the exercise of the instant cultural center or that the Plaintiff is obligated to do so in person even if the Plaintiff complies with the request for an interview. Rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, as the president of the Cultural Institute, has the authority to direct the employees of the instant cultural center, in cases where it is deemed that it is difficult or inappropriate to directly respond to the interview.

(B) Furthermore, the Plaintiff instructed K to attend an interview No. 3 of the [Attachment 1] No. 3 annually, and sent K a message with an anticipated question and answer in relation to the interview at issue on January 10, 2018, which constitutes a legitimate business instruction.

(C) Even if the Plaintiff’s instructions to attend an interview Nos. 1 and 2 (Attachment Table 1) with respect to the Plaintiff’s I were made without providing an anticipated question and answer, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff also responded to the interview No. 2 once a year; (b) the Plaintiff appears to have been considerably experienced as an employee since the instant cultural center opened the interview; and (c) the I appears to have been able to have been able to help the Plaintiff or to have been able to extend and prepare the interview if the preparation for the interview is insufficient, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s above instruction was inappropriate to the extent that the Plaintiff’s disciplinary reasons were deemed inappropriate.

10) Existence of disciplinary action 3-4

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

This part of the grounds for disciplinary action cannot be the grounds for disciplinary action because of distortion or exaggeration of facts.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff agreed to attend each hosting, such as the [Attachment 1] set forth in [Attachment 4] [Attachment 4], but allowed I et al. to attend on behalf of the Plaintiff.

(2) 1은 이 사건 감사 과정에서 '원고는 주요 인사들과 미팅을 잡아두고 갑자기 약속 당일 본인이 참석할 수 없으니 대신 참석하라고 지시한다. 약속을 잡는 과정에서 몇 번의 시간 조율 과정을 거치기 때문에 미팅 상대방은 원고와 만나지 못하여 기분이 언짢거나 화가 나 있는 상태에서 오게 된다. 전후 사정도 모르고 무슨 안건의 미팅인지도 모른 채 당일 참석 지시를 받아 참석하여 미팅 내내 미팅 상대방에게 사과하고 없는 말을 지어내 원고를 두둔해야 한다'는 내용의 확인서를 작성하였다.

[Reasons for Recognition] The Evidence Nos. 4 and 16-1

C) Specific determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff, the president of the Cultural Institute, promised two hostings and did not have existed immediately before hosting, and thus, it is difficult to view that there were many times in light of the Plaintiff’s period of working as the president of the Cultural Institute, which lasts three years. (ii) The Plaintiff ordered I et al. to attend a meeting instead of the Plaintiff’s failure, to minimize the business gap, and (iii) there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff’s failure to attend the meeting agreed in advance constitutes an inappropriate act as the president of the Cultural Institute, but it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff’s failure to attend the meeting was within the scope of the grounds for the disciplinary action.

11) Existence of disciplinary action 3-5

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

In the event of visitors visiting the cultural center of this case, employees received gifts from visitors, and the Plaintiff participated in the relevant event only upon special requests. In the event of visiting the cultural center of this case in FB BB, the Plaintiff decided to attend the relevant event, but issued instructions to seek understanding by making an urgent telephone call at the time of the relevant event, and cannot be deemed grounds for disciplinary action.

B) Specific determination

The Plaintiff is a person who did not participate in the event that was committed with FB BB in the instant cultural center at the time of the instant cultural center as the grounds for the disciplinary action in this part. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the said event was an event held by the employees of the instant cultural center, and there is no reason to deem that the event was ordinarily an event held by the Plaintiff. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff, the head of the instant cultural center, was unable to participate in the event, the employees of the instant cultural center appears to be able to participate in the event, and according to the evidence No. 4, M was recognized to have received gift by attending the said event on behalf of the Plaintiff, so it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s act was inappropriate to the

12) Existence of disciplinary action 3-6

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) Although the Plaintiff sent a message to the employees during a hours other than working hours, this is basically intended for the Plaintiff to share questions, ideas, etc. that the Plaintiff came to have in connection with his/her duties and to handle them during working hours. Some of the messages were in extenuating circumstances that make it impossible to send them out of working hours, such as the Embassy’s emergency instructions. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 15(5) of the Regulations on the Administrative Employees of the Korean Literature and Culture Promotion Center, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for disciplinary action since he/she has the discretion to allow the employees of the instant cultural center to go out or work on holidays.

(2) The remaining employees (M,O, and S) other than Q and U among F nationality employees of the instant cultural center may read the Korean language. In particular, in cases where the Plaintiff directed F FF employees to the Korean language, M is most the employee, and M is an employee capable of Korean language. Furthermore, since the Korean cultural center’s Korean nationality employees can both engage in F language, even if the Plaintiff uses some of the Korean language when sending the message to all employees, F nationality employees could have identified the contents by asking the Korean national employees, etc.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff, while serving as the head of the cultural center, asked the employees of the cultural center of this case about the matters relating to the work repeatedly on a legal holiday, or asked them about duties during the period of his/her working, not more than 08:30, 17:00. Of F nationality employees, the Plaintiff also directed them to M,0, Q and S in Korean language.

(2) During the instant audit process, I,K, M,0, Q, and S have prepared a written confirmation as described below (S).

[Attachment 6]

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 91, 93, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, 8, 13, 14, 17, and 18 (including the main numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

C) Specific determination

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding the respective statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 89, 90, 92, 96, and 97 to the above facts, the part concerning the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act during the grounds for disciplinary action is deemed legitimate grounds for disciplinary action, and the remainder is not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part has some grounds.

(1) On the part of the grounds for disciplinary action, part of the work instruction outside working hours

(A) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, while serving as the head of the cultural center, repeatedly sent messages related to the instant cultural center’s duties to the employees during a hours other than working hours. As such, the number of employees of the instant cultural center appears to have received considerable burden and stress.

(B) On this ground, the Plaintiff asserted that the said message was a vehicle that shares a simple question. However, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff sent a work-related message in many cases, and then sent it to the employee’s answer; (b) the Plaintiff appears to have expressed an dissipure if the employee did not have any contact outside the working hours; and (c) the Plaintiff sent a message to the effect that the Plaintiff would be reflected in the performance rate on October 2, 2016 on the ground that I and K did not have any contact (the Plaintiff was an inevitable measure as the Prime Minister’sF visit at the time, but the Prime Minister visited on October 8, 2016, and did not have any urgent data to deem that there was no reason to deem that there was any imminent reason to deem that the Plaintiff had any contact around October 2, 2016 (08:00).

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that some messages sent out by the Plaintiff were forced to be sent out of working hours due to urgency, but there seems to have been extremely limited to such exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that there was discretion to contact with the employees of the instant cultural center under Article 15(5) of the Regulations on the Administrative Employees of the Korea Cultural Institute and the Culture Promotion Center of the Republic of Korea, and that the said regulations “if necessary for performing official duties, the officer may instruct or approve the administrative employees to extend work (work hours exceeding the working hours prescribed in Article 15(1) and (2)), night work (work hours exceeding 10:0:0:0:0:0:00:00:00;00:00:00:0:00; and it does not order extension work, night work, etc. based on the said provisions, but made improper contact to the employees of the instant cultural center, who are on rest outside working hours, in accordance with the said provisions.

The plaintiff's act is not justified.

(2) The remainder

(A) From September 2003 to June 2004, M was enrolled in BC University BD campus, and was in charge of interpretation and assistance from 2005 to 2007. From November 201, 2010, M appears to have been at a level in Korean language, such as working as an administrative source at the Embassy, etc. From around the opening date of the instant cultural center. Even based on the content of L messages exchanged between the Plaintiff and M, the Plaintiff used both the Korean and English language, and M appears to have understood and responded not only to the Plaintiff’s instruction in English, but also to the direction in Korean language.

In addition, from April 208, 2008, Q used the cultural center prior to the opening of the cultural center of this case, from May 2013, the cultural center of this case from around the opening of the cultural center of this case, and from around December 2016, S worked and worked in the cultural center of this case from around December 2016, with a considerable number of experience in working in the cultural center of this case, but they seem to have failed to meet the Korean language ability of M. However, in each of the above certificates, S stated that "the work instruction of the plaintiff as Korean language" was "the work instruction of the plaintiff as seen above", and in fact, the plaintiff used the English and Korean language mixed with its employees, and it did not appear that the plaintiff did not understand the work instruction as Korean language so that it could not be understood as an issue or that it could not be understood as an inappropriate issue because it could not be understood that the plaintiff's Korean language, the head of the agency, as the Korean language, could not have been understood as a part of its employees' ability of the reasons for disciplinary action.

(B) Other grounds for disciplinary action include the part that the Plaintiff sent the message related to the work without specifying the person in charge. However, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff may send the message to all employees who are not the person in charge, and in the process, the Plaintiff’s failure to send the message in a language that enables all employees to understand, causing somewhat inconvenience. Accordingly, it cannot be readily concluded that it constitutes an act subject to disciplinary action.

13) Existence of disciplinary action 3-7

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff’s order to contact BE during childbirth leave and childcare leave to contact the J may not be deemed to cause the J to take over the relevant work from BE for which the term of the labor contract expires, or the Plaintiff’s order to seek simple advice in the course of preparing the budget explanation data in 2018 cannot be deemed to have forced the J to prepare the project plan, etc.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) BE is part of the project to foster specialized human resources for international cultural exchanges, to the instant cultural center.

2. From April 2, 201 to July 2, 2017, the J was dispatched as an intern and together with the J to perform duties related to public performance and exhibition planning. When the J took a childbirth leave on July 201, 2017, the Plaintiff was required to employ BE as a fixed-term administrative employee of the instant cultural institute and take charge of the duties he/she had employed BE as a fixed-term administrative employee of the instant cultural institute from July 11, 2017 to October 10, 2017. The J extended the period of the instant cultural institute’s reinstatement by using childcare leave on or around October 30, 2017, following the childbirth leave and the annual leave of absence. Accordingly, the Plaintiff extended the period of the Plaintiff’s employment contract with BE to December 10, 2017.

(2) From November 14, 2017 to December 16, 2017, J and BE provided the following Kakakao Stockholm messages.

1. BE on September 19, 2017: The head of the team, the head of the team, and the head of the (Plaintiff) shall be the same that he/she takes over before he/she completes his/her service period, and the head of the team on October 10 is the last day of his/her service, and the head of the team on the day is good that the head of the team is sent off to a motor-car office, and the head of the team on the day of his/her own. He/she refers to

O J: BE야, 내가 말은 안 했었는데 (중략) 그래서 출산하고 계속 혼자 모유 수유하면서아기 돌보고 있어서 평일에는 애기 때문에 나가지도 못하는 상황이야. 원장님(원고)께는 죄송하지만 지금 내 상황이 이래서 사무실 가는 건 어렵다고 말씀드려줘.O BE: 네! 알겠습니다ㅜㅜ 저도 팀장님 지금 출산휴가인 거 뻔히 알아서 페이퍼나 아님제가 직접 찾아뵙는 쪽으로 말씀드렸었는데 아무래도 사무실에 와서 받는 쪽으로말씀을 하셔서 난처했었거든요TT 상황 모르셔서 그런 것 같으니까 제가 다시 전화드릴게요!2. 2017. 11. 14.BE: (중략) 원장님(원고)께서 아직 본부에서 내년도 행사 포맷은 올라온 게 아니지만제가 10일까지라 그전까지 작성 안 해놓으면 다른 사람들이 작성해야 해서 빨리해야 할 것 같다고 하면서 팀장님께서 내년도에 행사 직접 해야 하니깐 매년 하던 거 외에 행사는 팀장님께 물어봐서 서류를 작성하라고 하시더라구요ㅠㅠJ: (중략) 행사... 지금 내 코가 석자인데... (중략) 미안하지만 너가 다른 나라 수교 때무슨 행사하는지 서치 좀 해서 작성해보는 게 좋을 것 같아. 그리고 원장님(원고)한테 내 상황 좀 설명 잘 부탁해. (중략)O BE: 네네 저도 서치해보고 이것저것 생각을 해볼 예정인데 원장님(원고)께서 팀장님께서 어떤 걸 생각하고 계시는지 집을 찾아가서라도 알아오라는 등 자꾸 말씀하셔서제가 그럼 다음에 또 얘기하시면 바로 팀장님께 상황 말씀드려볼게요! 원장님(원고) 성격 아시다시피 계속 반복적으로 말씀하시다 보니깐 저도 가운데서 너무 난처해서O J: 근데 BE야. 지난번 너가 야기한 후로도 몇 번 원장님(원고)이 물어본 적 있었어?O BE: 그 후에 네 번 정도 말씀하셨어요. K씨랑 1팀장님께 여쭈어보셔도 돼요.3. 2017. 11. 21,O BE: 팀장님! 혹시 내일 퇴근 후 찾아뵙고 싶은데 시간 괜찮으신가요?O J: 응, 내일 괜찮아. 그럼 낼 한 6시쯤 오는 거지?O BE: 네! 끝나고 바로 출발해서 집 찾아가면 6시쯤 될 것 같아요.4. 2017. 11. 22.BE: 팀장님 지금 출발할게요!

(중략)O J: (업무 관련 링크 전송)5. 2017. 11, 23.O BE: 팀장님! 혹시 어제 이것저것 적어주셨던 종이 팀장님께 있나요? 종이 아무리 찾아도 없어서ㅠㅠO J: 짐 찾아봤는데 없어.(중략)BE: 맛 전시가 맞나요? 아무리 찾아도 안 나와서 전화해서 물어보니깐 외부 전시한 적없다고 해서! 다시 한번 여쭈어봐요!O J: 청와대 사랑채는 김치. 한국의 맛은 일반 사설전시, (업무 관련 자료전송)6, 2017. 11. 29.O BE: 팀장님! 오늘 1시까지 가겠습니다.O J: 그래~7. 2017. 12, 15.O BE: 팀장님! G 잘 도착하셨나요? 저는 내일 오전에 G에 가요!!! 혹시 내일 시간 되신다면 점심쯤 잠깐 뵐 수 있을까요?J: 인수인계 마무리 때문이지? 나 내일은 언니랑 물건 살 게 있어서 백화점에 갈 것 같은데, 정확히 몇 시에 어디로 갈지 모르겠어. 내일 오전 중에 장소 알려줘도 될까?BE: 네! 오전 중에 알려주셔도 돼요!!8. 2017. 12, 16,O J: BEOF, LE BF 27401.

(3) J은 이 사건 감사 과정에서 '육아휴직 중인 2017. 10. 초 후임으로부터 내년도 행사 및 전시 계획을 전시 · 행사 담당자가 아이디어를 내야 한다는 연락을 받았다. 원고는 후임(BE)을 쪼아대며 자신을 사무실로 불러내던지 못 온다고 하면 집에 찾아가서라도 계획을 받아오라고 하였고, 후임(BE)이 너무 스트레스를 받아서 3번 정도 집 또는 밖에서 만나 2018년도 사업계획을 짰다. 전시공연 사업은 여기저기 컨택도 많이 해야 하고 전화도 많이 해야 하는데, 상황상 어려움이 많아 아주 힘들었다. 후임 (BE)도 처음 써보는 계획안이라 모르는 것이 많았고, 계속 저에게 카톡으로 작성자료를 보내주면 문장수정, 예산금액 환산 등 시간 날 때마다 자료작성을 도왔다'는 내용의 확인서를 작성하였다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 15-4, Evidence No. 15-2, each entry of Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C) Specific determination

In light of the following circumstances, the grounds for disciplinary action in this part are not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action, in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by adding up the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 100 through 106 (including the number of branches), and the purport of all arguments.

(1) On September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) through BE, expressed the position that the Plaintiff was unable to visit the instant cultural center to BE on October 10, 2017; (b) in light of the fact that the Plaintiff instructed the instant cultural center to take over the transfer from BE on October 10, 2017; and (c) it constitutes a reason for disciplinary action, it is insufficient to deem the Plaintiff to have ordered the BE to take over the transfer of the instant cultural center again to have received the transfer of the transfer of the instant cultural center. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28139, Oct. 10, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 24276, Oct. 10, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 24200, Oct. 22, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 24220, Oct. 2, 2017>

(2) Furthermore, we examine whether the Plaintiff instructed and forced J to prepare a business plan.

(A) There is no direct evidence, such as a message, etc. verifying the content of the Plaintiff’s specific business instruction with respect to BE, and only can it be indirectly confirmed through the message given and received by J and BE. As such, the content of the Plaintiff’s specific instruction with respect to BE may not be verified, and the Plaintiff’s message sent to BE through BE may not be accurately delivered, or may be sent to the J in a separate manner different from the Plaintiff’s initial intent. As such, it is difficult to accurately understand the meaning of the direction with respect to the Plaintiff’s message sent and received by J and BE solely on the part of the simple content of the Plaintiff’s message as identified.

(B) On November 14, 2017, BE askedJ to make a project plan. On the other hand, the Plaintiff sent a message to the J, i.e., the Plaintiff’s finding at the J’s home and giving a similar instruction to the extent of 4 times, including the Plaintiff’s finding of J’s idea. Then, BE and J sent the message related to the preparation of the project plan, and 3 times directly sent the message (in December 16, 2017, it appears that the assignee was only for the delivery of the message). However, even with respect to the message sent by BE, the Plaintiff did not appear to have urged BE to prepare the project plan on the premise that it is the subject of preparation of the project plan. In view of the fact that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had been forced to respond to the message sent by BE and to present the Plaintiff’s individual questions or to present the data related to BE’s work.

(C) Furthermore, in addition to the aforementioned circumstances: (a) around January 2018, when the J is reinstated to the instant cultural center, there was a person in charge of performance and exhibition planning; (b) the BE, which prepared the business plan in 2018, was a special situation in which it was unable to participate in the events held in 2018 on December 10, 2017 due to the expiration of the service period on December 10, 2017; and (c) the events indicated in the business plan in 2018 include part of the events similar to the events in the preceding year; and (b) some of the events are deemed to have been prepared by the Plaintiff and other employees to seek advice from the Plaintiff or the other employees; and (c) it is insufficient to deem that the direction of the Plaintiff to seek advice from the J to the BE on childbirth leave or childcare leave is inappropriate as it constitutes a ground for

14) Existence of disciplinary action 3-8

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

In the process of the J’s “BG exhibition event,” etc., the Plaintiff took full account of having the employees of the instant cultural center share the gold-related affairs. The Plaintiff considered some of the promotional events related to the Pyeongtaek Winter Olympic Games prior to the childbirth leave, but it was based on the judgment that it is adequate to proceed with the event in the first half of the year where it is relatively difficult time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not actually adjust the schedule of the event, and thus does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) The instant cultural center was scheduled to hold “BH, a public relations event for the Winter Winter Games in the second half of the year of 2017. However, the Plaintiff promoted a plan to hold the said event before July 2017, which was scheduled to begin on July 2017, but did not actually hold the relevant event during the first half of the year of 2017.

(2) From April 24, 2017 to April 27, 2017, the instant cultural center held the “BG Special Complex” event. The J participated in the event as a person in charge of performance and exhibition planning, and other employees, such as Plaintiff and I, K, M, Q, Q, and S, participated in the event. On April 26, 2017, J was diagnosed at hospital disguisedis.

(3) The J prepared the following confirmations during the instant audit process:

The Plaintiff knew that she was pregnant and gave birth to her first time on July 2017, and agreed to provide good time to participate in the promotional event of the Pyeongtaek Winter Winter Games, which was scheduled on October 1, 2017 or November 2017.OJ prepared for BG exhibitions and V J PP PPPP events together with 2017, and was the largest exhibition during the exhibition of the instant cultural center, and the Vice-Mayor, Ambassador, etc. were present. In the event of war, J did not have any work, such as the selection of works, promotional materials, schedule, and operation plan, so far as it was difficult for the Plaintiff to provide assistance to other employees on the day of the event, but it was also necessary to provide assistance to the Plaintiff on the day of the event that she was pregnant and working in the second half of 7 months of pregnancy, but it was also necessary for the Plaintiff to receive a large number of stress on the day of the event.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 100, 109, 115, Eul evidence 2, and 15-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C) Specific determination

In light of the following circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff gave excessive work instructions to pregnant workers in light of the overall purport of the pleading in the above facts, so this ground for disciplinary action is not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

(1) Considering the method of holding “BH,” which was scheduled to be held in the second half of 2017, in the first half of the year, the Plaintiff appears to have been appropriately divided in consideration of the event schedule, etc. of the instant cultural center in order to prevent the event from being held during a specific period. In fact, the foregoing event was not held during the first half of 2017.

(2) According to the J’s confirmation, the Plaintiff instructed J to prepare for BG exhibition events along with S and BE, which causes excessive burden to J as it is insufficient human resources in light of the size of the pertinent event, etc. However, there is no adequate data on human resources necessary for the preparation for the instant event. However, most of the employees of the instant cultural center were participating in the instant event, and the presence of the employees of the instant cultural center in the JDo confirmation itself is recognized in the instant event. Furthermore, it is difficult to readily conclude that J was caused by excessive work of disguised infection suffered by the Defendant around the above time.

15) Existence of disciplinary action 4-1 to 4-4

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that this part of the grounds for disciplinary action is not recognized for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff requested K and M with respect to the reservation, travel information, etc. of airline tickets, etc. necessary when traveling F and neighboring countries as stated in the instant disciplinary ground. However, the Plaintiff, as the president of the instant cultural center, was in need of experience of cultural heritage and relics in the East Asia, and was not a superior, taking advantage of his superior position.

(2) Grounds for Disciplinary Action No. 4-2

The Plaintiff, like the grounds for the disciplinary action in this part, had the U.S. take a leave at the time of the Plaintiff’s family travel and had the U.S. driver play a role. However, the instant cultural center had a practice to request the driver to drive on the weekend, etc. of the president of the Cultural Institute, and to compensate for the low wages by paying the fees therefor, which is U.S. leveled.

(3) The Plaintiff requested Q to introduce a personal swimming instructor and a F language instructor as stated in the instant disciplinary cause. This was not a request for the submission of a lecturer from Q of F nationality, which was not a request for the submission of a burden to Q, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff used the superior position as a superior.

(4) Disciplinary Reason No. 4-4

The plaintiff, while S and S and S are trying to ask S where they can purchase a flusor, water-icker with a flusor, which was prevailed at the time, and ask S where they can purchase the flusor, and then ask S where they can do so. The plaintiff merely purchased the flusor and paid the flusor and did not issue any instruction.

B) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, and 8 of this case, it is recognized that K, M, Q, and S have prepared a written confirmation of the following contents in the audit process of this case:

[Attachment 7]

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C) Specific determination

(1) As indicated in the grounds for disciplinary action in this part, the Plaintiff: (a) caused M to make a reservation of airline tickets, etc. for personal travel inside and outside of working hours five times; (b) asked K, M, etc. to seek information on travel; (c) demanded U to take a leave to have a driver on his/her family travel; (d) requested Q to introduce a personal swimming instructor and a F language instructor; and (c) requested Q to introduce a personal swimming instructor and F language instructor; and (d) purchased S to purchase S a U Usle and a physical bottle.

(2) The Plaintiff’s act was not a unilateral instruction, but a human request. The Plaintiff asserted that the process, such as M, S, and U, if efforts were made or expenses were paid, it would not be problematic due to its preservation. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the respective descriptions and arguments in Nos. 13-1, 24 of the evidence and the whole purport of pleadings, the Plaintiff’s act was in violation of Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, and this part of the grounds for disciplinary action are all acknowledged as justifiable grounds. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(A) In this confirmation, K, M, and S stated that the Plaintiff “private work order” in relation to the grounds for disciplinary action as seen earlier, and even if considering the message (Evidence No. 13-1 of the Evidence No. 13), which the Plaintiff and M exchanged with the Plaintiff and M, the Plaintiff’s demand related to the reservation of air tickets against M continues to meet the Plaintiff’s private request due to M as well as working hours, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s demand is in response to the Plaintiff’s private request. Even if the Plaintiff took an attitude to request the Plaintiff’s private work in formality to K, M, Q, Q, S, and U, the Plaintiff is in the position of directing and supervising K, M, Q,S, U as the head of culture center, and in particular, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s request for the recruitment of administrative staff (Articles 9 and 10), conclusion of labor contracts (Articles 12 through 14), and performance rating (Article 7) constitutes a practical refusal of the Plaintiff’s private work order.

(B) The main text of Article 13-2 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials pursuant to the delegation of Article 7 and Article 8 of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission provides, “No public official shall receive, request, or promise private labor from a person related to his/her duties or a public official related to his/her duties by exercising de facto influence derived from his/her duties, duties, duties, etc.” In addition, according to the Code of Conduct for Public Officials Abroad (No. 92 of the Diplomatic Directive), which applies to public officials stationed abroad, such as the presiding official, etc., he/she must be noted that any private behavior that may not be a problem domestically may cause serious problems abroad (Article 2(2)), and the private life shall maintain dignity and dignity as public officials after carefully acting in accordance with high level of ethical and moral standards (Article 2(3)) and instruct a person subject to his/her management and supervision by abusing his/her private authority to his/her duties (Article 7(5)5) and 7).

(C) Although the Plaintiff paid to M the subscription fee for airline tickets, the price for the goods to S, and the 3.50,000 won in return for the performance of the driving engineer's role, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff's private business instruction is justified solely on such circumstances.

16) Existence of disciplinary action 5

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff, when his family visits F and the Plaintiff returned to F, used his official vehicle in the airport, etc., but in this case, he obtained U’s consent. However, it does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. However, the Plaintiff merely called the Plaintiff’s failure to file an application for overtime work when the Plaintiff used the official vehicle on a legal holiday and returned to the instant cultural center after using the official vehicle on a legal holiday to the shopping mall of the instant cultural center. In addition, the Plaintiff did not use the official vehicle for shopping purposes. In addition, if the Plaintiff used the official vehicle on a legal holiday, it did not demand U to make an application for overtime work only by granting the fee to U when he uses the official vehicle on a private basis.

B) Specific determination

According to the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s family member, etc. visited F in 2017 and the Plaintiff’s private vehicle is deemed to have violated Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act when returning to F after traveling to F countries, and the remainder is not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is with merit.

(1) The Plaintiff, when the Plaintiff’s family member, etc. visited F in 2017, and when the Plaintiff returned to F, he/she is a person who has used public vehicles for private purposes when he/she returned to F, and Article 13 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials pursuant to delegation of Articles 7 and 8 of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission prohibits the use of the foregoing public goods for private purposes.

(2) In addition to the portion of the grounds for disciplinary action that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, the remaining part of the grounds for disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have been specified as the grounds for disciplinary action (in the case of the portion using public vehicles in the airport, etc. prior to the Plaintiff’s identity, the Plaintiff cannot exercise his/her right of defense since it can be understood that the relevant grounds for disciplinary action are relevant to certain acts through the details of entry and departure by the Plaintiff, his/her family members, etc.). As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the evidence supporting this part cannot be deemed to be justifiable grounds for disciplinary action, since the above written confirmation cannot be deemed to have been reliable.

17) Existence of disciplinary action 6-1 to 6-6

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

From January 29, 2018 to February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff was aware that the instant cultural center of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is scheduled to conduct on-the-spot special investigations, and did not request the employees to make a favorable statement, or not end up to allow them to participate in the instant audit. Furthermore, in the process of transferring an official residence on January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff merely granted leave only on the relevant day at the discretion of the head of the cultural center and granted leave only by U at the discretion of the head of the cultural center, and the Plaintiff’s statement to U on-the-spot is not J, which is not the Plaintiff but the grounds for the relevant disciplinary action are not recognized.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) At around 17:00 on January 27, 2018, the Plaintiff divided KK as follows.

OK: so far, it is so long as it was so written? Whether it was so written? Whether it was so written? The plaintiff was written, and how it was so written? ? there was no question? there was no question? There was no question about whether it was ‘A'? There was no e-mail? There was no question? It was no person who wishes to write it? (mar: I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out? I would like to see the quality of the plaintiff? I would like to write it out? I would like to write it out. I would like to see it more I will we see. I will we see. I will we think we will see it more.

I am the same as I am. K I am. I am am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we ? we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we we am we we am we am we we am we we am we am we we am we we am we we am we am we we am we am we am we we am we we am we am we we am we am we we am we we am we we am we am we we am we we am we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we we.................. we we we we we we we we we we....................................... we we we we we we we we we we we we we we.................

In that, whether removal may be considered to be that of the match? If you want to speak as the president, ○○, and the plaintiff I agreed to do so? (a) I asked to do so? I would have done so? I would have done so? I would have done so? I would have done it? I would have done? I would you you you now? I would you you you you you now know, and we would know the system well, and the system would not know. (b) I would have no value, so we will now come back. I would like to do so. I would like to find out that we will attack after the date of protecting the system. I would like to know what you want to do. I am well.

(2) On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff divided M and U into the following dialogues. On the same day, U and M prepared a written confirmation to the Plaintiff that “U shall not enter the office and studio during the audit and inspection period.”

○○ Plaintiff: (A) I asked to go through the (m) BM (M) BM (M) test, so I would not talk about another person. While I would be her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to this.

(b) Plaintiff: He will be able to see the problem of M: He will be asked to do so. He will be asked only by her friend, us. He will be asked to her friend, al. He will be able to do so. He will not friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend: friend friend friend. friend friend friend friend friend: friend friend friend, friend friend, friend friend friend, friend friend friend friend friend friend frith friend friend frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith f.

O: (O) MaM means that U enters the Plaintiff and that it is the time that U enters the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff means that the Plaintiff is a person in the JI U test. On the other hand, the Plaintiff: O M: JM. 8 JM: JM. : 1. The Plaintiff’s words in the English language. It is flick. It is not possible to ask the Plaintiff to her flick? The fact that J is unflick? The fact is not sent? It is not possible to ask the Plaintiff? It is now now? It is so far as U is flickly flick? There is no opportunity to flickly flickly flickly flick? There is no opportunity to flickly flickly flickly flick? There is no opportunity to flickly flickly flickly flish flish flish flish flish flish.

(3) On January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff divided the following dialogues with U.S.

○ Plaintiff: U.S. : At the instant cultural center, U.S. Ma. Ma. Ga. Ga. Ga. Ga. Do. Do. ?5 O Do. Do. ?6) Does: The Plaintiff: In the instant cultural center, whether he/she was waiting and known at the instant cultural center, whether he/she was aware of it? Doer’s leave?7)

(4) During the instant audit process, J, K, and U drafted a written confirmation as described below (Attachment 8).

[Attachment 8]

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Specific Determination of Evidence Nos. 36, Evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 19 through 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

In light of the following circumstances revealed based on the above facts, the grounds for disciplinary action under Articles 6-1 through 6-4 are deemed to have been a violation of Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act and justifiable grounds for disciplinary action, but the grounds for disciplinary action under Articles 6-5 and 6-6 are not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part

(1) According to the letter of confirmation by the J of the 6-1 disciplinary ground in this part, the plaintiff should not be aware of the fact that the plaintiff had 's "J' around 13:00 as of January 26, 2018 as of January 26, 2018. The records remain. Although there have been various types of Name, although JC has been long known, it is not a position to go beyond the past, but it has to make it possible to have a reasonable problem. (1) On January 26, 2018, when the plaintiff made the above statement, around 13:00, it appears that the local special investigation pursuant to the audit by the auditor of this case (as of January 1, 2018, 30.) was imminent, and the fact was already known to the Cultural Institute of this case, and (2) The plaintiff has already expressed the above part of the plaintiff's opinion that it would not be adequate for the auditor of this case.

(2) Disciplinary Reason No. 6-2

As seen earlier, at around 17:00 on January 27, 2018, prior to the commencement of the instant audit, the Plaintiff asked K to specifically ask K to the details of the document prepared in relation to the Plaintiff’s misconduct, and emphasizes that the references related to the grounds of the instant disciplinary action No. 4-1 were made only once by the defect himself/herself, and, emphasizing that “I do not know that I do so? I do not see that I do not have to do so? I need not make any request to K, I, and I would not have to know about what extent I would like to do. Furthermore, I would have been an important event. Also, I tried to make the Plaintiff to inform the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s misconduct, such as “I would know that I would like to be aware of the Plaintiff’s behavior that would be disadvantageous to the Plaintiff in the future due to the instant disciplinary action that would be beyond the reasonable level of audit and inspection.” This seems to have been recognized as a mere fact-finding action that would be beyond the scope of the instant disciplinary cause.

(3) On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff made a statement that it is difficult to reply to M on several occasions, but repeatedly asked M to whether M has made a statement to the Inspector, and during that process, “M’s statement can be confirmed, if there is any problem, and if there is any problem, it may be demanded to take disciplinary action, and it is not yet prepared a work assessment report in 2017.” The Plaintiff made a statement that “M does not reply because M did not reply to the end of the Plaintiff’s request because it was bad to the Plaintiff.” Although the Plaintiff made a statement after February 1, 2018 at the time of the said statement, it is reasonable to view that the additional investigation may be conducted in the future. If the Plaintiff’s behavior cannot be seen as being conducted simply to prevent the Plaintiff from making any further statement, it is reasonable to deem that M did not reply to the Plaintiff.

(4) 6-4 grounds for disciplinary action

(A) On January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff called U.S. leave, and ordered U to speak at the instant cultural center. The date the order was issued was the date the local special investigation was started according to the instant audit, and it is reasonable to view that U.S.’s order to inform U of the Plaintiff’s misconduct at the time when the said local special investigation was anticipated to be conducted, which was given to U.S. employees of the instant cultural center, should not participate in the audit.

(B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that he granted leave at the discretion of the president of the Cultural Institute, but at the time, the Plaintiff did not confirm the fact that the Plaintiff granted leave to U for the said reason, and even if the Plaintiff granted leave for the said reason, it appears only to be a nominal reason. Furthermore, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the date when the Plaintiff granted leave to U was given to U is the date on January 30, 2018, and the next January 31, 2018, the date when the Plaintiff was given leave to U was waiting at the instant Cultural Institute, but this does not interfere with the recognition of the Plaintiff’s act to prevent U from participating in the audit on January 30, 2018. (c) Accordingly, this ground for disciplinary action is recognized as a legitimate ground for disciplinary action.

(5) The evidence supporting the grounds for disciplinary action in the part of 65 is the only U’s certificate (Evidence 7). As seen earlier, U’s U’s certificate is not reliable and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, this part of the grounds for disciplinary action cannot be deemed legitimate.

(6) Upon the Plaintiff’s request on February 7, 2018, U and M drafted a written confirmation that the Plaintiff “I” read to U during the audit and inspection period of the instant case that U and M read “I enter the office and the studio.” However, as seen earlier, U and M were special at the time of preparing the instant written confirmation.

There is no reason to deem that there was a request to prepare a written confirmation different from the fact, and M rather, it is confirmed that M refused to answer the Plaintiff’s question asked to the Inspector and that M responded to the Plaintiff’s request to confirm the relevant fact. Therefore, this part of the grounds for disciplinary action does not constitute justifiable grounds for disciplinary action.

18) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s ground for disciplinary action No. 1-1 is deemed as follows: (a) absence on December 13, 2017; (b) absence on December 15, 2017; (c) absence on January 9, 2018; (d) absence on January 11, 2018; (e) early withdrawal from office on January 12, 2018; (e) early withdrawal from office on January 15, 2018; (e) removal from office on January 16, 2018; (f) removal from office on January 16, 2018; (f) removal from office on January 16, 2018; (f) removal from office on January 18; (f) removal from office from office on January 18, 2018; (f) removal from office from office on the rest of No. 1371, Jan. 16, 2018; and (f) removal from office on January 21, 20-18.

C. Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken against a person subject to disciplinary action, who is a public official, is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority significantly lacks validity under social norms, and thus it is unlawful to take the disciplinary measure against a person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined by taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure, etc., and if the disciplinary measure is determined objectively and clearly unfair, even if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, it is against the public interest principle that should exercise the authority to take the disciplinary measure for public interest, or if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure goes against the principle of proportionality or the standard of fair application of the same degree without reasonable grounds, it is unlawful as 5016.

B) Meanwhile, in a case where it is sufficient to recognize the validity of the pertinent disciplinary action even with only some of the grounds for disciplinary action recognized as not having been partially recognized, the same is not unlawful even if the relevant disciplinary action is maintained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da51555, Jun. 25, 2004). However, given that there are different specific circumstances among the grounds for multiple disciplinary actions, where it is sufficient for the employer to recognize the validity of the relevant disciplinary action against a worker only with some of the grounds for the pertinent disciplinary action, the details and main grounds for the disciplinary action

In light of the substance and proportion of the grounds for disciplinary action determined, the grounds for which part of the grounds for disciplinary action is not recognized, the type of the relevant disciplinary action, the procedure for determining the disciplinary action prescribed by the relevant employer, the scale and nature of the relevant employer, and the standards and practices for disciplinary action, etc., the maintenance of the relevant disciplinary action ought to be carefully determined so as not to cause unexpected disadvantages to the relevant employee. In such cases, the burden of proving whether the relevant disciplinary action is sufficient to recognize the validity of the relevant disciplinary action is borne by the employer (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du57318, Nov. 28, 2019).

2) Specific determination

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view the instant dismissal disposition as deviating from and abusing the discretionary power vested in the person having authority over disciplinary action since it has considerably lost validity under social norms, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is reasonable.

A) As seen earlier, the grounds for the instant dismissal disposition include a number of grounds that are not recognized as justifiable grounds for disciplinary action. Specifically, the reasons for the dismissal disposition of this case include: (a) some of the reasons for the dismissal of a pregnant employee; (b) the reason for the 1-1, 1-2 disciplinary action; and (c) the reason for the 1-3 disciplinary action; (d) the reason for the 2-1, 2-4 disciplinary action that neglected or inappropriate status as a diplomat because of disregarding the Diplomatic precedents; (e) the reason for the 3-1, 3-5 disciplinary action that neglected his/her external affairs, such as having a staff member take care of without having himself/herself; and (e) the reason for the 3-6 disciplinary action, such as having a pregnant employee take care of his/her duties in Korean language; and (e) ordering and forcing a pregnant employee to prepare a business plan, etc.; (e) the reason for the 37-7, 3-8 vehicle; and (e) part of the reasons for the 6-6-5 of the entire disciplinary action cannot be recognized.

B) The Central Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the premise that both the grounds for the disciplinary action of this case are recognized. The Defendant decided to dismiss the Plaintiff according to the resolution of the Central Disciplinary Committee. However, the former Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Decree of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree (amended by Ordinance No. 1467 of May 30, 2018) provides that disciplinary action shall be taken in cases where the workplace is in violation of the prohibition of non-performance (unlimited to cases of non-performance), the violation of good faith, the prohibition of non-performance (other cases of non-performance of dignity), and the "in cases of non-performance of dignity" or "in cases of gross negligence, the degree of non-performance is serious, or the degree of misconduct is weak," and that the Defendant can not be readily concluded that the disciplinary action of this case is identical to the disciplinary action of this case.

C) The dismissal of a public official is deprived of his status, and constitutes a disciplinary action most serious to the removal. In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff did not have any record of disciplinary action prior to the instant dismissal disposition, and served faithfully as a state public official for about 19 years, it is reasonable to view the instant dismissal disposition as exceeding the bounds of discretionary power, even in light of the public interest that the Defendant intends to achieve through the instant dismissal disposition, such as the public trust of public officials, the normal operation of duties and the maintenance of order in the public service society.

Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the claim of this case is reasonable.

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judges Kim Jae-jin

The same shall also apply to other employees.

2) F and the Korean starting point are F am more than F in Korea for AD hours; hereinafter the time is less than F in local hours, unless there is a special indication.

section 3.

3) On April 14, 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to submit to the Defendant a record of the Plaintiff’s entrance to the Embassy, and the Defendant requested the Defendant to do so.

I express the position that no record of entry into and departure from the Embassy cannot be submitted in the legal brief dated 2020, March 17, 2020, and the special case

this section does not provide an explanation.

4) Unlike the aforementioned U’s certification letter, the given part is written in the English as well as in the English language. The F nationality employee is written.

In the absence of any special reference in relation to a written confirmation, the same shall apply.

5) U, Don'tgo to kcc, to date. Don to kc. Gac. Ok?

6) Anadmorow?

7) Doom eccc.Ok? Jus to Just yeri days hody? Ok?