부당대기발령 등 구제재심판정 취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
3. The supplementary participation among the appeal costs shall be the same;
1. An appeal as to the legitimacy of an appeal filed by the Intervenor joining the Defendant may be filed only for a trial disadvantageous to himself/herself, and whether the trial is disadvantageous to the appellant should be determined at the time of filing the appeal on the basis of the text of the trial as the standard, and as such, the appeal against the entire winning judgment is unlawful as
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20235, Jul. 13, 2007). In light of the records, the Defendant’s winning of the entire case is recognized, and the Defendant’s appeal filed by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is unlawful as there is no benefit in the appeal.
Therefore, the intervenor's appeal is dismissed.
2. The reasons why the court should explain the details and content of the decision made by reexamination are as follows: “ March 25, 2015,” “ March 23, 2015,” “Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act,” “ July 8, 2016,” “ October 14, 2016,” and “ October 24, 2016,” “Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act,” and “Article 420 of the Enforcement Decree, October 24, 2016.”
3. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under the scope of the Plaintiff’s legitimate personnel authority for the following reasons, and thus, the judgment of the instant case was unlawful on a different premise.
1) Prior to the instant transfer, the Intervenor was at fault with employees and having been at fault with customers. After the instant transfer, the Intervenor received the results of evaluation corresponding to Category C or Category D, which was conducted from 2007 to 2016, and the results of work performance ratings corresponding to insufficient or poor performance during the first half of 2016. Thus, the Intervenor constitutes “when the Plaintiff’s work performance or work performance is poor due to lack of work performance capacity” as prescribed by Article 24(1)1 of the Personnel Management Regulations, and the need for the instant standby order is recognized.