1. On May 15, 2019, the Defendant confirmed that the first-month disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, which was taken against the Plaintiff, is null and void.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a medical institution established under the Act on the Establishment of National University-affiliated Institutes.
From March 25, 1993, the Plaintiff was ordered from April 23, 2014 as a nurse at the Defendant hospital, and has been in charge of all matters concerning the management of temporary employees of the nursing department and all the affairs of the nursing department.
B. On December 2016, the Plaintiff made efforts to improve human resources by requesting recommendation to the vocational training school to seek alternative human resources, etc. However, due to the nature of the work mainly engaged in night work, patient transfer, cleaning, and various kinds of hearts, etc., the Plaintiff was unable to find applicants due to the nature of the work.
C. At that time, C, who was the director of the nursing support division of the Defendant Hospital, recommended D as a temporary employee, and the Plaintiff confirmed D’s intent to work, and completed the approval as the approving authority in the employment-related documents around December 26, 2016.
On January 2019, the Ministry of Education issued a heavy disciplinary measure against C and the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the result of the measure to be submitted to the Ministry of Education on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s employment of D violated the duty to evade the interest under Article 7 of the Guidelines for the Action of Officers and Employees (hereinafter “Guidelines for Action of Officers and Employees”).
Accordingly, on February 27, 2019, the defendant applied for a review on the audit results to the effect that a heavy disciplinary measure is unfair, but received a decision of dismissal.
E. On May 7, 2019, the Defendant: (a) held a special personnel committee on May 7, 201; and (b) on May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff was subject to suspension from office for one month on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 4 Subparag. 3 (Duty of Good Faith) of the Defendant Service Regulations
(hereinafter “Disposition of Suspension from Office”). Article 7 (Avoidance of Interested Duties) of the Guidelines for Action of Officers and Employees (1) The duties of officers and employees shall fall under any of the following subparagraphs: