정직처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspension from office for one month against the Plaintiff on March 25, 2015 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the following facts: Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3, and Eul evidence No. 5 (the same as Eul evidence No. 2) and the whole purport of the pleadings:
The Plaintiff is a person who was appointed as a local fire-fighting officer of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on March 30, 199 and served in the Geumjin Fire Station from January 28, 2013 to July 13, 2015 at the on-site response team, who was in charge of driving of a fire-fighting vehicle at the on-site response team, and was in charge of driving of a fire-fighting vehicle from July 14, 2015.
Although the Plaintiff is fully aware of that it is unable to lead a normal marital life with B having mental problems, while pregnant B around August 2014, the Plaintiff forced B to perform abortion prohibited by Article 269 of the Criminal Code and decided with B, and then violated the duty of good faith and the duty of dignity maintenance that should be observed as fire-fighting officials by forcing B to perform abortion prohibited by Article 269 of the Criminal Code. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25079, Sep. 2014>
B. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant, following a resolution by the Fire Officials Disciplinary Committee, issued a disposition of one month of suspension from office on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity) and 55 (Duty of Good Faith) of the Local Public Officials Act by committing the following disciplinary actions against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).
C. On March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disciplinary action, and filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disciplinary action with the Seoul Local Appeals Commission, but on June 19, 2015, the said appeals review committee rendered a decision of dismissal on the ground that the instant disciplinary action was recognized and the disciplinary action is appropriate.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that abortion, which is the cause of the instant disciplinary action, is included in extremely secret private areas without any relation to the Plaintiff’s duties, who is a local fire-fighting official, and thereby, the Plaintiff is able to perform his duties.