2019Nu6040 Revocation of revocation of a reprimand

A

Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Ansan-gu et al.

Minister of Public Administration

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Guhap81615 decided September 20, 2019

December 19, 2019

January 9, 2020

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on January 9, 2018 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and this Court’s reasoning is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following parts.

The plaintiff appealed that the disposition of this case is unlawful by violating the principle of proportionality, on the grounds of the details of the moving-in report for resident registration, investigation circumstances, and merits.

However, even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court re-examines the plaintiff's assertion in this court, it is difficult to view that the disposition in this case excessively deviates from and abused discretion on disciplinary action, and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

[Supplementary Use]

“The fact that the plaintiff won the commendation of Prime Minister twice on June 30, 1998 and December 31, 2006 before the disposition of this case 】 “The plaintiff was selected as an exemplary public official on June 30, 1998, pursuant to the Rules of Exemplary Officials, and on December 31, 2006,” and “the fact that the plaintiff won the commendation of Prime Minister on December 31, 2006.”

○○ 5th 3 to 6th 1st 6th of the judgment of the first instance, “There is no minor disciplinary action than a reprimand, so long as the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, and the criteria for disciplinary action prescribed by the rules of this case are not reasonable. Therefore, the instant disposition conforms to a disciplinary action determined by the rules of this case ? The instant disposition conforms to a disciplinary action determined by the rules of this case, and the criteria for such disciplinary action cannot be deemed unreasonable.”

- “The fact that the plaintiff won twice the Prime Minister’s commendation that can be subject to disciplinary mitigation” - “the fact that the plaintiff won the commendation of Prime Minister that can be subject to disciplinary mitigation once and is selected as an exemplary public official in accordance with the regulations of exemplary public officials”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge, police officer;

Judges Lee Jong-hwan

Awards and Decorations for Judges