logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.02.04 2019구합108243
정직처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a fire-fighting official on December 21, 1992 and served in the fire station in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do from January 1, 2017.

B. On May 9, 2018, the Fire Officials Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff as follows, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the removal on May 9, 2018.

In light of the grounds for requesting disciplinary action against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”), a public official pursuant to the provisions of Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act, was unable to perform his/her duties in and out of his/her duties, thereby complying with all laws and regulations, and making no act detrimental to his/her dignity as a public official. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff, from a restaurant where it is impossible to know the trade name B of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, on the 50m alcohol level at approximately 0.057% of alcohol level from blood alcohol level to the D coffee shop, was driven in E while under the influence of 50m alcohol level at approximately 0.057% of alcohol level (hereinafter “driving of this case”). Accordingly, a public official’s order to take disciplinary action under Article 55(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) was requested by the Daejeon District Public Prosecutors’ Office for the same reason.

2. The plaintiff's opinion is omitted.

3. On April 6, 2018, the Plaintiff had to absolutely not drive alcohol while drinking as seen above, but had been subject to a disposition of non-detained trial by the subordinate office of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office on April 6, 2018. Even if it was not related to the performance of official duties, the Plaintiff committed an illegal act contrary to its processing standards and all relevant laws and regulations, regardless of whether it was a public official's body and dignity, regardless of whether it was a public official's official duty.

arrow