logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.12.24 2019구합73314
강등 처분 및 징계부가금 1배 부과 처분 취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 28, 191, the Plaintiff was first appointed as a local administrative secretary of Grade II on November 28, 1991, and thereafter, on December 27, 2007, through promotion of Grade V administrative affairs and promotion to Grade IV administrative officials on October 11, 2013, and during the period from February 11, 2017 to March 4, 2018, the head of the B Committee C (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretariat”) was the head of the regional office of the Secretariat in Gwangjin-gun District Committee from March 5, 2018 to August 6, 2018, and the Defendant was established as the head of the office of the National Committee for Environmental Preservation under the Act of 20 years from March 5, 2018 to March 31, 2018, and was established as the head of the National Committee for Food and Drug Conservation under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Food and Rural Affairs established by the Ministry for Food and Rural Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”).

B. On November 12, 2018, the Defendant notified of the Plaintiff’s heavy disciplinary decision and disposition, on the ground that there was a specific disciplinary cause, such as “the Plaintiff, in violation of the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the same Act, conducted 17 times in total against its employees on 17 occasions, including the following Table 1: (a) demanding the employees under his/her jurisdiction to engage in private labor once every four times as indicated in Table 2; (b) spent the special food expenses on the weekend and holidays for a private purpose on six occasions; and (c) used the public vehicles for private purposes three to four occasions.” In addition, the Defendant demanded a disciplinary decision to the Central Disciplinary Committee by taking a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff.

arrow