(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.5.15.선고 2013구합2758 판결

The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs in January of the salary reduction for June 11, 2013, and the transfer disposition as of June 1, 2013, all of which are revoked (it appears that June 14, 2013 listed in the written complaint appears to be written in writing as of June 11, 2013).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 31, 1995, Plaintiff A was appointed as an administrative assistant (Grade VI) for an administrative assistant, from February 27, 2012 to May 31, 2013, and Plaintiff B was appointed as an administrative assistant (Grade VIII) for an administrative assistant on December 11, 2006, and was on duty in the Ministry of Employment and Labor from March 2, 201 to May 31, 2013, with the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s guidance for the prevention of industrial accidents in the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Yang Mountainous District Office.

B. On June 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) transferred the Plaintiffs to the planning division of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office, Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) by the Minister of Employment and Labor on June 1, 2013, pursuant to Articles 78(1)1 and 78-2 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree, on the ground that the Plaintiffs violated their duty of integrity by receiving entertainment of KRW 211,200, respectively from 19:00 to 22:25, respectively from 2013 to 30:10 to 300,000, respectively, from 2013 to 30:10 to 200.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Plaintiff A was a one-year line of Plaintiff D’s university and was pro rata with D’s 1 year line. However, as the Plaintiffs had been under the supervision of D’s workplace, contact was made with D with D with D, and the Plaintiffs paid D the alcohol value by personal card, and then the Plaintiffs paid D KRW 420,000 on the following day. D was in charge of labor-management relations as the total head of the team of C’s office, which is not related to the Plaintiffs’ industrial accident prevention guidance duties, which the Plaintiffs were in charge of labor inspector, was irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ intentions. In light of the fact that the attending of E directors, who are C’s safety manager, was irrelevant to C’s will, and the Plaintiffs had already taken measures such as administrative fines and corrective orders, etc. prior to the said drinking place, etc., the Plaintiffs’ act of having D et al. with D et al. is private-friendly and not related to duties.

2) The Defendant discovered the Plaintiff’s entertainment and issued each of the instant dispositions based on the illegal and excessive inspection of the Plaintiff A’s unfounded investment reports. The Defendant was illegal as an excessive disciplinary action based on the illegal inspection act.

3) Even if there are grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff A was premised on D and private met with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff B was present at the drinking place upon the Plaintiff’s recommendation. In light of the damages that the Plaintiffs would incur due to each of the instant dispositions, the career of the public official as well as the public official, each of the instant dispositions is in violation of the principle of proportionality, and is in violation of the discretionary authority.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Facts of recognition

1) A around 1999, Plaintiff A first met D’s work in a union of labor and management in Yangsan-si area, and came to know that there was a difference between the post-ship of the East Asia University, and thereafter, Plaintiff A shared the post-ship of the East Asia University.

2) On May 2, 2013, from around 14:00 to May 11:50, 2013, the Plaintiffs supervised the industrial accident prevention of C. The fact that E director, who is a safety control manager, did not receive education from a safety control manager, was discovered, and only D working as the head of the C general affairs team, at all times.

3) On May 3, 2013, Plaintiff A received a proposal for any defect, such as meal, from Plaintiff A, and made a delivery on May 6, 2013. On that day, Plaintiff A was asked on May 6, 2013 whether Plaintiff A would be punished by asking Plaintiff A to be able to go in E, C’s team leader F, Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B, respectively.

4) Afterwards, Plaintiffs, D, E, and F completed meal and took entertainment in “G essential place,” and both KRW 236,00 and KRW 820,000 of the meal cost incurred prior to the settlement by D in the personal card.

5) The Plaintiffs were identified by the staff of the Auditor General of the Ministry of Employment and Labor who inspected the Plaintiff A while receiving a letter of commitment that the Plaintiff received entertainment from the relevant company at the time.

6) Plaintiff A returned KRW 420,000,000, which was Plaintiff B and her mother, to the effect that Plaintiff A was the Plaintiffs’ share of meal expenses and household meal expenses on the day immediately following the day to the office.

7) The Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency taken two corrective measures against the plaintiffs' violation of the Industrial Accident Prevention Supervision against C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the duty relationship is related

Article 14 (1) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the Ministry of Employment and Labor provides that "no public official shall receive money, real estate, gift or entertainment from a person related to his duties." Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Code of Conduct provides that "any person or organization related to the duties" means any person or organization falling under any of the following items, who directly receives benefits or disadvantages due to the cancellation of authorization, permission, etc., suspension of business, suspension of work or use, suspension of business, imposition of penalty surcharge or fine for negligence, etc., and "an individual or organization directly receiving benefits or disadvantage" in item (c), "an investigation, audit, supervision, inspection, inspection, inspection, administrative guidance, etc.," which can be known according to the above facts, the plaintiffs were engaged in supervising C, and as a result, imposed a fine for negligence to C, together with the plaintiffs, they were belonging to C's safety manager who was directly supervised by the plaintiffs as the head of the public service team, and the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs are responsible for the duties of CD and its commitment.

2) Whether the inspection was illegal

The plaintiffs' act of receiving entertainment from D was revealed to the staff of the Auditor General of the Ministry of Employment and Labor who inspected the plaintiff A at the time of receiving entertainment from the related companies. However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the inspection to confirm the misconduct of the employees under the written administration is not inevitable; and (b) the dispositions of this case are not based on the reasons indicated in the written administration, but due to the reasons newly discovered in the process of confirming the misconduct specified in the written administration, the defendant's inspection act cannot be deemed unlawful; and (c) it cannot be deemed as an unfair disciplinary action based on the written administration without any ground, and therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff A received an official commendation, such as being selected as an exemplary public official on June 30, 201 and the exemplary public official. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff A received entertainment of KRW 211,200, which is a duty-related person of D, E, F, and drinking job, as the proposal of D, an associate professor who completed the supervision over his/her workplace, after his/her university. The plaintiff A received entertainment of KRW 211,200, and 200, 200, 200, 200, and 420,00,000 won to D was known to be a party to his/her duties, and the fact that it was discovered that the entertainment case was discovered by the public official of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and that the transfer disposition against the plaintiffs was made in accordance with the criteria for the disposition of misconduct against the public official of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, it seems reasonable to exclude the plaintiffs from the relevant duties.

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.