beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 20, 1975, the Plaintiff is a local public official who was appointed as a public official of the Sung-gun Office (Grade 9) and served as the Sung-gun Office B from July 3, 2009 to August 1, 2010, and is in charge of affairs related to the installation project of livestock excreta disposal facilities ordered by the Sung-gun Office.
B. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant requested a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff to the Standing Committee. On the following grounds, the said personnel committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff and impose a surcharge of KRW 1 (3,587,000) pursuant to Articles 69(1) and 69-2 of the Local Public Officials Act. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to dismiss the Plaintiff and impose a surcharge of KRW 3,587,00 (3,587,00) on the Plaintiff according to the result of the said decision.
(1) Around July 13:59, 201, the Plaintiff was in charge of the business related to the installation of livestock excreta and public disposal facilities ordered by the Sungsung-gun (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (1) The Plaintiff was in charge of the business related to the installation of livestock excreta and public disposal facilities ordered by the Sung-gun Office while working for Gosung-gun B (from July 3, 2009 to August 1, 2010), and was selected as a disposal company of the installation of high livestock excreta and public disposal facilities (hereinafter “BCS public disposal facilities”), “The Plaintiff was in charge of convenience so that the GE, which is in possession of the BCS public disposal facilities, may be selected as a public corporation.” The Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from her husband’s agricultural bank account through an implied solicitation and received KRW 16:2,000,000 from her husband’s agricultural bank account on the same day and received KRW 2,000 on July 8, 2018.
7.9.A suspicion of receiving a bribe of KRW 50,000,000 from a person related to his duties in total four times in exchange for each of the above E accounts around September.
② The above suspected facts are recognized as true, and they violate Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 53 (Duty of Integrity), and 55 (Duty of Integrity) of the Local Public Officials Act. This constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 69 (1) of the same Act and disciplinary action surcharge under Article 69-2, and thus, the petitioner shall be dismissed and discharged.