beta
Text
The defendant's removal disposition against the plaintiff on March 5, 2013 shall be revoked.
Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 1, 1974, the Plaintiff was appointed as a Grade IV administrative secretary and was promoted to the Grade IV on September 25, 2006, and thereafter served as the Director of the Tax Office from January 4, 2010 to December 29, 2010, the C Director of the Tax Office from December 30, 201 to December 29, 201, and the C Director of the Tax Office from December 30, 201 to December 29, 201.
B. On February 13, 2013, the Central Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration decided to dismiss the Plaintiff as grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”), and accordingly, on March 5, 2013, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff from office pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act.
(1) The Plaintiff was absent without permission from September 10, 2012 to September 201, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) despite the three-time order of service, such as the “E, thorough notification of the designation and service of the place of work (E, September 11, 2012), the “ thorough notification of the return to and service at the place of work (F, September 18, 2012)” and the “ thorough notification of the return to and service at the place of work (G, October 8, 2012)” (hereinafter “each notification in this case”).
The Plaintiff’s act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act that violates Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and 58 (Duty of Prohibition of Deserting from Office) of the same Act.
2. In full view of the records of the Central Disciplinary Committee’s determination, the grounds for disciplinary action should be taken into consideration the following: (a) the Defendant, despite having ordered the Plaintiff to work three times from September 10, 2012 to November 2, 2012, leaving his/her superior’s workplace without permission or good cause and was absent from work for 33 days without permission for 33 days; (b) the Defendant, from March 2010 to February 13, 201, did not return to the country; and (c) the Defendant, from March 2010 to February 2, 201, via three instances from the representative H of the imported frozen meat and freezing company, was the charge of acceptance of bribe worth KRW 30 million, such as cash and regrat, following the National Police Agency’s notice of commencement of investigation, and the Defendant’s failure to refund to the police station after departure from Korea to abroad, and the cause for