1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff is a fire-fighting official who was appointed as a local fire-fighting officer on July 31, 1992 and served as the fire-fighting pump fire-fighting crew member at the 119 Safety Center consisting of Chungcheongnam-do B fire-fighting officers (hereinafter “B fire-fighting crew member”) after being promoted to the local fire-fighting commander on January 14, 2008.

B. On November 15, 2013, the Director of the Bwestbook took a disciplinary action for one month of salary reduction (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) upon a resolution of the B Fire Officers Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “Disciplinary Committee”) on the grounds that the following disciplinary action was taken against the Plaintiff.

The grounds for disciplinary action (the plaintiff's misconduct) unilaterally notified a person with a higher rank of his/her position of early retirement on September 24, 2013, and then dismissed his/her workplace without permission (from 17:00 to 18:00 hours of work) for one hour without approval of the head of the 119 Safety Center (C) as the supervisor determined by the head of the agency to which he/she belongs. On September 25, 2013, the plaintiff ordered him/her to submit a detailed statement about the case of leaving his/her workplace ( September 24, 2013) on September 18:30, 2013, the plaintiff did not submit such statement. On September 26, 2013, the 119 Safety Center head of the 119 Safety Center head of the 119 Safety Center head of the agency to which he/she belongs; however, the plaintiff refused to comply with the demand to maintain the dignity of the 119th office head of the 50 center (the local Public Officials Act).

C. On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the local appeals review committee of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and dismissed on January 9, 2014.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff’s absence of the grounds for disciplinary action, as to whether the Plaintiff’s respective statements in Gap’s No. 1, Eul’s No. 1, and Eul’s No. 6, and the overall purport of the pleading, is legitimate, shall be against the head of the immediately superior team D, who is one hour before the retirement time, in order to avoid any dispute with the head of the 119 Safety Center (hereinafter “head of the Center”).