(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.08.22 2019누36195

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.08.22 2019누36195

감봉처분취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The grounds alleged by the defendant in the court of first instance while appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from those alleged by the defendant in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance are reviewed together with the defendant's assertion, the judgment of the court of first instance accepting the plaintiff

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 4th 18th 19th 19th 1 of the first instance court ruling, “The duty of a soldier on duty at the time of on-the-job service shall be deemed exclusive to achieve the above purpose of on-the-job service.” The duty of a soldier on-duty shall, in principle, be deemed to be limited to the duty necessary to achieve the above purpose of on-the-job service.”

On the 5th 3 to 5th 5th , “A person who gives instructions related to the watchkeeping to soldiers on duty who are on duty under the order of a commander shall not be permitted for the exclusive nature of the watchkeeping as seen earlier,” which is “A person on duty who gives instructions related to the watchkeeping to soldiers on duty who are on duty under the order of a commander shall not be permitted in principle in light of the scope of the duties of soldiers on duty as seen earlier.”

The 5th 8th 2th 8th 2th 3th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 2006, where the duty officers are allowed to instruct soldiers on duty to perform their duties not directly related to the duty of watchkeeping, and

The 8th 14th 15th am "G was at least 6 hours of rest after the end of the watch service on the day, leaving the morning at least after the end of the watch service on the day."

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.08.24 2018누40234

-대법원 1990. 12. 21. 선고 90도2425 판결

-서울고등법원 2019.02.22 2018누67376

-서울고등법원 2019.02.08 2018누52954

-서울고등법원 2019.06.07 2018누75162