(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.10.23. 선고 2019구합682 판결

A. The Plaintiff is a person appointed as an administrative officer on April 27, 1992 and promoted to Grade II or III on September 26, 2012, and served as the head of the policy planning team for the Ministry of Industry and Energy from April 29, 2016, and is under the order of the head of the Ministry of Industry and Energy from January 25, 2018.

B. On November 7, 2018, 2018, 10, and 19, upon the Defendant’s request for a disciplinary resolution, the Central Disciplinary Committee made a reduction of two months against the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”). Accordingly, on November 7, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of reduction of two months on the ground that the instant disciplinary cause exists against the Plaintiff, and that it violates Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “original disciplinary measure”).

1. The Plaintiff: (i) ordered the Director-General, including the amendment of the Special Act on Designation and Operation, B, and the Director-General to report to the Director-General; (ii) on the same day, the Plaintiff returned to the Director-General’s performance all efforts within the country of origin to indicate that “I am unfasible Director-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General-General.

On December 19, 2017, the plaintiff ordered the Minister to deliver the data on the request for the submission of the data on tax reduction and exemption to the victim's office "I would like to be submitted to 0 teams because I would like to do so." The plaintiff stated that "I would like to be in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea and it would be difficult for C to submit data on the request to other departments", and that "I would like to know that I would like to know when I would like to know that I would like to be ‘I would like to see that I would like to know' and ‘I would be responsible for I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to know that I would like to be ‘I would like to know' of ‘I would like to know' and ‘I would like to know' of ‘I would like to know' and ‘I would like to know' of ‘I would like to know' of ‘I would like to know that I would like to know,' and that I would like to know the plaintiff'.

C. On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition review against the initial disciplinary action. On December 31, 2018, the Ministry of Personnel Management, which was recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, but changed to one month of the reduction of salary for the initial disciplinary action (hereinafter referred to as “the initial disciplinary action that was changed to one month of salary reduction”), taking into account the circumstances in which it appears that the personnel required at the time were not adequate (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 13 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) procedural defect

The investigation of the Defendant’s audit room was not conducted fairly, the said audit room rejected the Plaintiff’s request for the provision of relevant data for investigation and re-audit, and also requested that the Plaintiff be provided an opportunity to compromise with C in the course of disciplinary action, but all of them were rejected, etc., there are procedural defects unilaterally and disadvantageously, without restricting the Plaintiff’s legitimate right of defense.

2) Material defect

There is no fact stated in the grounds for disciplinary action, except where the person assaults against C to the extent that it does not go against the social norms.

(iii) the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority;

Even if the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, one month of salary reduction was remarkably balanced and fair compared to the plaintiff's mistake, and was abused and abused discretion.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether procedural defects exist

Article 11(1) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials provides that a person concerned may be required to appear only when the disciplinary committee deems it necessary. In light of relevant materials submitted to the Central Disciplinary Committee at that time, even if the Central Disciplinary Committee did not request the attendance of related persons, such as C, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s legitimate right to defense has been infringed (the same shall apply even if the Plaintiff did not provide a settlement opportunity between C and C). Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s remaining assertion is difficult to view that there is a defect in the disciplinary procedure by itself as to the process of investigation by a person entitled to request disciplinary action. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected (in addition to the purport of the entire argument in subparagraph 8-1 of the evidence No. 8, the Plaintiff submitted a document that denies all of the grounds for disciplinary action (Evidence No. 8-1 of the evidence No. 8), and the Plaintiff can

2) Whether there exist grounds for the disposition 2)

A) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, every public official shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes and faithfully perform his/her duties, and Article 63 of the same Act provides that a public official shall not engage in any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is inside or outside the scope of his/her duties. Here, the term “goods” refers to physical body without any color in maintaining the body, dignity, and credibility of a public official and performing his/her duties as a servant of all citizens who are deemed to be the number of sovereign citizens, regardless of whether it is inside or outside the scope of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du47472, Nov. 9, 2017).

B) the facts of recognition

(1) On December 28, 2017, C received a grievance report to the Defendant’s Audit and Inspection Office. On December 26, 2017, the immediately preceding report was diagnosed as a major depression disorder in the mental health department on December 26, 2017. C received treatment, such as taking medicine after undergoing a periodic medical examination for the said depression, from January 3, 2018 to March 21, 2018.

(2) On March 2018, C submitted an application for approval of medical care in the line of duty to the Defendant along with a medical certificate on major depression disorder 3). Accordingly, the Defendant investigated the circumstance of the above disease, and prepared an application for approval of medical care in the line of duty (C’s overtime work and holiday work for the last six months, conducted 347 hours in total, and confirmed that the Plaintiff’s verbal abuse, assault, and strong pressure work instruction, etc., which are the head of the department that may cause emotional distress and fear, was constantly exposed to the Plaintiff, and in particular, it was confirmed that the monthly amount immediately before the outbreak occurred frequently was confirmed that the relevant cases such as verbal abuse, etc. frequently occurred, and thus, the said assault and verbal abuse, etc. were related to the above commercial branch, and transferred it to the Service.

(3) On May 3, 2018, the Public Official Pension Service confirmed the facts, investigated the fact, and caused major depressions on December 26, 2017 as a public duty disease, which was determined by a third party on December 26, 2017, and then decided to approve medical care for official duties from March 9, 2018 to September 8, 2018.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of the whole pleadings

C) Specific determination

(1) On November 15, 2017, the following circumstances acknowledged as the facts of recognition prior to the omission of instructions and improper remarks, as well as evidence and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7 as the overall purport of pleadings, namely, C, who was in charge of the special act on the designation and operation of B at the time, ordered employees of the same division as himself/herself/herself/herself/herself and other employees of the same division on November 15, 2017 in the process of handling grievances, and made a detailed statement about the omission of statements due to improper remarks. The above statement is reasonable in itself, and it is very detailed to the extent that it is impossible to know without experience, and at least 2, E, who was instructed by C and the Plaintiff, prepared a written confirmation document (Evidence No. 2) as to the above amendment No. 1, 200, which was prepared to verify the credibility of the document No. 20, which was written by the Director of Audit and Inspection at least 1, 300, as the above content of the document No.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff appears to work as the Director General in the Plaintiff’s complaint; (b) there were many problems such as the duties of the Director General; (c) the Plaintiff responded to the fact that it has to work under an unequitable bureau that it has yet to be promoted; and (d) the Plaintiff is a person who has presented a new statement at the office (the Plaintiff submitted a document that is the assertion of the discipline accused person (Evidence A-1) in the process of the decision of the Central Disciplinary Committee; (b) the Plaintiff at the time submitted a new statement in the process of the decision of the Central Disciplinary Committee; and (c) there was a person who could be somewhat excessive remarks that he left in the office with an unspecified person (seven pages) while making a new statement; and (d) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff made an inappropriate statement to the Director General on November 15, 2017; and (e) it is clear that it is a violation of public official’s duty of good faith or a violation of dignity, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part of this part is without merit.

(2) On December 19, 2017 and December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff avoided 1’s duty as stated in paragraph (2) of the above Disciplinary Reason, 200, and 3 and 5, together with the overall purport of oral argument, as seen earlier, C had avoided his duty as stated in the Disciplinary Reason 2 on December 19 and December 26, 2017; the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff’s assistant employees were unable to perform his duty as stated in paragraph (1) of the above Disciplinary Reason 1; the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff was unable to perform his duty as stated in paragraph (2) of the above Disciplinary Reason 2; and the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff’s assistant employees were unable to perform his duty as stated in paragraph (1) of the above Disciplinary Reason 2 of the above Disciplinary Reason 3 and 5; the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff appeared to have been unable to cooperate with the Plaintiff’s 3 and 2’s emotionally expressed motive or form of force.

(3) On January 5, 2018, 201, C stated that the Plaintiff abused the upper part of the body outside the office room to report the business plan of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on December 28, 2017, as stated in the grounds for disciplinary action No. 3-1, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the facts acknowledged prior to the Defendant’s assault portion, evidence and evidence No. 4 as mentioned above, and the purport of the pleading No. 4, i.e., the victim’s c., the victim’s c., who was waiting for the Plaintiff’s report, was not in violation of its duty, and C was in violation of its duty, and immediately after that c. was in violation of its duty to report the above contents to the Defendant’s audit room, and it is evident that the Plaintiff’s c.m. was in violation of its duty to report the above contents to the Plaintiff’s c’s c.m., the Plaintiff’s c.’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s c.

3) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

A) Relevant regulations and legal principles

Article 2 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1467 of May 30, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials") provides that "the Disciplinary Committee shall pass a resolution on disciplinary action or disciplinary surcharge in accordance with the disciplinary guidelines, etc. in attached Table 1, in consideration of the type of misconduct by a person suspected of disciplinary action or disciplinary action under Article 78-2 of the State Public Officials Act, the severity of misconduct and negligence, the seriousness of his/her conduct, performance, public service, regulatory reform, and national tasks, the active nature of the performance of relevant duties, the degree of penance, and other circumstances."

Article 5 (1) provides that if two or more misconducts that are not related to each other are concurrent, the disciplinary committee may decide on the disciplinary action at one step above the disciplinary action which is heavier than the one which is heavier than the one which is heavier.

On the other hand, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of the discretionary right has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the measure may be deemed unlawful. In order to deem that a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it should be determined that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and clearly deemed unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu14637, Nov. 25, 1997; 201Du10895, Oct. 11, 2012).

B) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the above facts and the entire pleadings, the disposition of this case by the defendant cannot be deemed to have been abused or abused discretion because it considerably lacks validity by social norms compared to the degree of the misconduct, or because it is objectively unreasonable and objectively. Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

① In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s misconduct in this case is multiple, and the type of the misconduct is diverse, and C is recognized as a disease in the line of duty and is subject to the decision to approve medical care for public duties. The Plaintiff’s misconduct is heavy. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has already been given written warning due to an employee assault, verbal abuse, etc. on October 28, 201.

② Each of the instant misconducts committed by the Plaintiff constitutes a violation of good faith or duty to maintain dignity under [Attachment Table] of the Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Decree of the Public Officials, and constitutes a case where the degree of non-performance is severe, gross negligence, or the degree of misconduct is weak, or there is an intentional act in light of the details of the misconducts, and thus, the disciplinary standard constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s misconducts are considered to be a case where the degree of non-performance is serious, long, or the degree of misconduct is weak, and the disciplinary standard constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s misconducts is considered to be a case where the degree of non-performance is excessive, or the degree of gross negligence is weak, and as seen earlier, the disciplinary standard constitutes a case where two or more misconducts unrelated to one another are concurrent, the disciplinary measure is more unreasonable than the punishment of non-related misconducts. Thus, even if the Plaintiff received an official commendation from the Prime Minister on March 30, 202, the above disciplinary measure does not exist in the process of being reduced or exempted by the Presidential Decree.

③ The reduction of salary means a period of not less than one month but not more than three months (Article 80(1) of the State Public Officials Act), and even if it is deemed that the reduction of salary constitutes a reduction of salary in accordance with the criteria for the Enforcement Rule of the Decree of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, one month of the reduction of salary is the lowest during the reduction of salary. The first Central Disciplinary Committee passed a decision on “two months of the reduction of salary” and made such a decision, and the Minister of Personnel Management changed to one month of the reduction of salary, taking into account the objective situation where the personnel necessary at the time of the instant misconduct and the Plaintiff’s personal circumstances.

④ In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff suffered any disadvantage other than monetary damage from promotion for a certain period of time; (b) although the Plaintiff’s disposition constitutes “suspension of duty in accordance with a disciplinary decision,” (c) the Plaintiff’s excessive salary reduction, which was the lowest one month of salary reduction; (d) the Plaintiff’s act of assaulting and verbal abuse, etc. to subordinate subordinate employees, as seen earlier, is more severe; and (e) the Plaintiff appears to have suffered considerable mental suffering; and (e) the public interest, such as the realization of a defined public service society and the establishment of a discipline, is also an important value, it is reasonable to deem that the public interest, etc. to be achieved through the instant disposition is superior to the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, deputy judge;

Judges are unable to affix a name or seal as a full time leave.

The presiding judge

Judges

Judges Yellow-nam

Note tin

1) The Plaintiff sought revocation of the Defendant’s disposition of salary reduction for one month on January 4, 2019, but the Defendant issued a disposition of salary reduction for two months on November 7, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

After that, the appeals review committee rendered a ruling to directly alter it by a disposition of one month of salary reduction as of December 31, 2018, and accordingly, the defendant was accordingly accused.

A. On November 4, 2019, the first two-month disposition of salary reduction as of November 7, 2018 was issued by the appeals review committee because it was known that the disposition was changed by one month of salary reduction.

It was naturally changed to a disposition of salary reduction for one month on the same day without the need to wait for a separate administrative disposition by the formation power of the court;

The notice of one-month disposition of the salary reduction in January 4, 2019 is merely a notification of the concept of the formation power as above, and thus, the correction is made.

2) Recognizing the validity of the pertinent disciplinary action even with only other grounds for disciplinary action, which are recognized even if some of the grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized.

In sufficient cases, even if a disciplinary measure is taken, it is not unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du11813, Nov. 1, 2004). The following are the following:

As seen in this case, the illegality of the disposition in this case is recognized as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action in paragraphs 1 to 1, 2, 3-1 and 3-1.

Since it is sufficient to recognize the rest of the misconduct, it shall not be judged separately.

3) The medical records records of C at the time of medical treatment with C, mainly with the commercial parties, including the Plaintiff’s violence, verbal abuse, etc., work, etc.

It seems that it appears that it is hard and stressed (the plaintiff's 15th, 16th, April 24, 2019).