logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.02.12 2014누58626
해임처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420

Since it is reasonable to see that he received entertainment at the seventh 10th 7th 7th son, the following is added "(the fact inquiry results of the fact inquiry about D in the appellate court's decision alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition)."

The 8th 8th 13-15 main heading part is as follows.

【Defendant’s assertion to the effect that there exists a ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff received a golf entertainment from a person related to the Plaintiff’s duties. However, the above argument is not permissible because it alters the ground for original disposition that “the Plaintiff received a golf entertainment from M,” that is, “the Plaintiff received a golf entertainment from M,” and it is not permissible to accept it. Even if the above assertion is permitted, it is insufficient to recognize that “Y is a person related to the Plaintiff’s duties,” or that the Plaintiff received a golf entertainment from Y with the knowledge that the Plaintiff was a person related to the Plaintiff’s duties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable.

[Judgment]

2. The decision of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow