beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are the same purport as the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance is presented, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance
The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s argument in addition to the following additional statement as to the Plaintiff’s argument. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main
2. In a case where a public official, as a general rule, conducts an erroneous administrative disposition due to the failure to know the relevant laws and regulations or the lack of necessary knowledge in performing his/her duties, he/she cannot be deemed as a public official in a civil service who is not a legal expert. However, even though the language and text itself does not itself make clear, there are many opinions on the relevant laws and regulations. However, in a case where there is no doubt due to the lack of significance, such as precedents, theories, and precedents, if the relevant public official's reasonable ground is found in his/her own discretion and it is not the position that the Supreme Court issued based on one of his/her own opinions, and thus, it is difficult to expect a wrong interpretation. Accordingly, even if the process results in the illegal execution of the relevant laws and regulations, it is difficult to expect an average public official who faithfully executes the above treatment method, and therefore, even in such a case, the negligence of a public official cannot be acknowledged under the State Compensation Act.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da83298, Feb. 24, 2011). From 2001, the Plaintiff served as the head of the C Kimpo-si branch, an incorporated association, and has been holding concurrent office as the head of the D’s facility, which is a welfare facility for the disabled from 2005.
The plaintiff's legal status is the retirement reserve under the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.