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 May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Director of the Tax Office on August 23, 2009, and served as the Director of the Tax Office on August 23, 2009, and on November 17, 2014, respectively, as the Director of the Tax Office, and until February 17, 2015.
The Plaintiff visited Seo-gu, Daejeon, from September to December of December, 12, the first commercial sex acts (no trade name) conducted by visiting an officetel (no trade name) located in Seo-gu, Daejeon, for the first time, and then, on November 1, 12, “12 years,” and on December 3, 12, the Plaintiff paid 120,000 won for each time to the same female and the same sexual sex acts in cash and habitually conducted commercial sex acts (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”), and proposed that the said female and the female sexual sex acts C (hereinafter “foreign sexual”), and lent money several times, but on February 18, 13, the Plaintiff was aware of the Nonparty’s false remarks and borrowed money without the intention of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s permission to borrow money from the Nonparty, and received a loan certificate from the Nonparty on December 1, 192, and confirmed the Nonparty’s personal information on the authenticity and collection of the personal information from the public service center’s office (the Nonparty’s spouse’s 12.4.
(2) The grounds for the disciplinary action shall be as follows.
On February 13, 2015, the General Disciplinary Committee of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office decided to dismiss the Plaintiff by applying Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act, which caused the Plaintiff to commit unlawful acts as follows, and violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 60 (Duty of Confidentiality), and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act. Accordingly, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff on February 17, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Ministry of Personnel Management, and the said appeals review committee on April 29, 2015.