1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the ruling of the retrial are as follows: “B” means the 2nd 1, 12, 13, and 14th 2nd 1, 12, 13, and 14th 2nd 2 of the ruling of the first instance; “B” means “B” means “B” with “B” with “B, 3rd 1st 3th 8th 8th 2nd 8th 8th 8th 8th 2th 8th 8th 2th 2th 2th

As stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, "in addition to addition of "the reasons for the judgment of the first instance" is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. Since the determination of suspension from office of the Plaintiff’s assertion is appropriate, the retrial of this case was unlawful to the purport that the determination of suspension from office of this case was abused by excessive discretion.

(b) Attached records, such as relevant statutes;

C. Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken against a person subject to the disciplinary measure for the reason for the disciplinary measure is illegal only when the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has been placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, and only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure because the disciplinary measure as the exercise of discretionary power has

If the disciplinary action has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary action should be determined in full view of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary action, the purpose of the disciplinary action, the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary action, etc., depending on the specific cases.

Therefore, even if the exercise of the authority to take disciplinary action is entrusted to the discretion of the authorized person, it violates the principle of public interest that should exercise the authority to take disciplinary action for the public interest purpose, or violates the principle of proportionality by selecting an excessive disciplinary action that is not balanced compared to the degree of delinquency which is generally considered as the cause of disciplinary action.