logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.07.20 2015구합1979
징계처분취소
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. The Plaintiff, as the Army Order, served as the head of the student military school B from June 25, 2014, and served as the deputy head of the Army Team from July 14, 2015.

B. The Defendant violated the duty to maintain dignity by insulting or having a subordinate officer from time to time (two to three times a week) between meetings and education as the head of the education group, while serving as the head of the education group, as stated in the attached Form 1 language violence and insult (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s statement of verbal violence and insult”). Moreover, on September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s candidate for the executive officer smoked by using the tobacco and lifts of the school officer’s tobacco and the horse on the part of the school officer, and caused his/her subordinate officer to stop in the barracks, thereby violating his/her duty of fairness, on the ground that he/she violated his/her duty of fairness by forcing him/her to stop in the barracks.

C. On June 4, 2015, the Ministry of National Defense appealed against the above disciplinary action, and the Ministry of National Defense decided to reduce the period of suspension from office for three months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff to one month. Accordingly, the Minister of National Defense reduced the period of suspension from office for three months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which has been mitigated for one month from office (hereinafter referred to as “the ground for recognition”), is without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The grounds for disciplinary action Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13 were acknowledged, but there was no act as set forth in Nos. 9 and 17, and there was no act as set forth in Nos. 2, 8, 11, and 16.

arrow