1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the judgment is used or added as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts used or added;

(a) On the 6th written judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

C) Although the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017Nu30063) rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 16, 2017. The Plaintiff filed another appeal with Supreme Court 2017Du61348, but the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on December 27, 2017.

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Forms 13 and 10 of the Judgment of the first instance shall be followed by the following:

The Personnel Management Rules of the Defendant (No. 21, No. 32-1, and attached Table 5) provide that the act of violating the duty of good faith, violation of the duty of obey, and violation of the duty of escape from the workplace shall be subject to dismissal if there is any intentional misconduct. Article 32-2 of the above Rule provides that when a decision on disciplinary action is made, the discipline accused person's behavior, performance, service performance, public service, attendance, attendance, details of request for disciplinary action, and other circumstances shall be considered.

In light of the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s misconduct is serious and intentional.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes grounds for dismissal even if it complies with the criteria for disciplinary action determined by the personnel management rules, and the criteria for disciplinary action determined by the Defendant’s personnel management rules cannot be deemed as excessive in light of social norms. Therefore, the dismissal decision of the Plaintiff cannot be

Since the plaintiff received official commendation from the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Mayor and the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service in around 2012, disciplinary action against the dismissal from office under Article 33-1 (2), Article 32-1, and attached Table 6 should be mitigated.