2011Guhap1899 Revocation of disposition of revocation of class action

leap* (540828 - 1)

Mayang-si -

Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Goyang-si Market

Goyang-gu Goyang-gu Dayang-ro 10

Law Firm TelbS et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-hoon

September 27, 2011

October 25, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of demotion rendered to the Plaintiff on January 12, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a public official of Grade 9 in local administration on June 1, 1979, and was promoted to a local administrative officer on May 26, 2008. From January 4, 2010, the Plaintiff served as the head of Goyang-si MaMa MaMaMa MaMa MaMa MaMaMa.

B. On January 12, 2010, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity under Article 48 and Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act due to the following reasons.

Terms and conditions of sexual harassment (physical contact)

○ The Plaintiff around June 2010, 2010 MaMa MaMa Ma Ma Ma Public Health Center at the meeting place of the Health Administration Team of this 99 (Grade 9).

The hand was able to be used as aground, etc. on the shoulder and shoulder, and 1. or 2. of the same year.

Having obtained approval, Kim98 (Medical Technology Class VII), he/she has taken the hand or has taken the hand on his/her shoulder, and has taken the same action;

SECTION 7. to 8. Rabling, etc., several times, including, but not limited to, the number of descendants of this 97 (Class VII of Nursing).

It causes the relevant female employees to feel displeasure and sexual humiliation.

Terms and Conditions of Sexual Harassment (Language)

○ The Plaintiff is at the waiting room for the first floor of a public health clinic at the time of expiration of the point of time on March 31, 2010 (health)

9) He knee knee knee knee knee, and at the waiting room for the first floor in the spring of the same year.

96 (Commercials) For the purposes of this Act, she shall have kneee in August of the same year and around September of the same year (Grade VII of Nursing).

Easure and sexual humiliation have been made to female employees;

Eargument and women’s remarks

○ The Plaintiff, from time to time at the team leader meeting, from time to time to time, Me Me Me Me Me Ma public health clinic.

To see, us must, us, us, us, us to see, us, us, us? us, us. ices

Ham walm walm walm walm walm walm walm walm walm walm?

The lower court’s employees, i.e., f., h., h., a h.o.h. h. h.

The public health center had a speech to take the place;

○ At the time of the meeting of the head of the pharmaceutical administration team, the head of the pharmaceutical administration team shall hear the horses “I am unable to speak, I am bad. I am within 95.

The term "..." means the health leave for female employees at the meeting of the head of the team and related health administration;

The head of the team shall not, if he/she is off of his/her clothes, be off of his/her clothes. They shall be off of his/her clothes.

In addition, he/she shall not be removed from his/her clothes. We cannot but see, “.....”

Hambling women's remarks.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a petition review with the Gyeonggi-do Local Appeals Commission on February 8, 201. On March 28, 2011, the said commission made a decision to change the above disposition against the Plaintiff due to demotion, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on January 12, 2010, changed by demotion, etc.”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not cause any other female employees to feel displeasure or sexual humiliation due to language or physical contact, etc., and the statement of the warden's speech is merely an exaggeration to speak in the state of interest, and there is no reason for the disciplinary action against the plaintiff. The employee who provided an oral speech, such as the reason for the disciplinary action, presented his opinion that the plaintiff should promote the smart care service pilot project promoted by the head of the public health clinic in a transparent and thorough manner, and that the public health clinic head and the public health clinic head excludes the plaintiff from the above pilot project.

Even if there are the above grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the disciplinary action of the instant case is an unlawful disposition that deviates from and abused discretion, compared with the grounds for disciplinary action.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The existence of grounds for disciplinary action

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff made a secret statement to his superior at the meeting of the team leader, the head of the public health clinic, and women on March 2010 through August 2010, the plaintiff made physical contact with each other, such as drinking 9, Kim98, and 97's drinking bucks, which are female employees, or knishing knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish knish 99, 97, and 96. This constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith of public officials and the duty of dignity maintenance as provided in the Local Public Officials Act.

The plaintiff shall present his opinion that the plaintiff should promote the smart care service pilot project promoted by the Director of the MaMaMaMa Meal Public Health Center in a transparent and thorough manner, and the head of the above public health center and the employees thereof.

In full view of the following facts, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion in light of the fact that multiple employees consistently asserted false information related to the Plaintiff’s misconduct, and that the said employees did not seem to have any particular reason to undermine the Plaintiff, to exclude the Plaintiff from the above business (in accordance with the result of inquiry by this court about the high school and high school council, the pilot project for smart care service promoted by the Goyang-si Council, including a public hearing or a briefing session, etc., around September 9, 2010, and the fact that it was pointed out that the Defendant did not accurately appear in the effect of the project’s progress and the business timing, etc., but on the above basis, it cannot be readily concluded that the head and its employees made the statement the same as the instant disciplinary cause for the purpose of detrimental to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., e., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3248, Sept. 9, 2010).

2) Whether the instant disposition was deviates from or abused by discretion

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is placed at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. Thus, in order to be illegal, the disciplinary measure is limited to a case where the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to abuse the discretionary power left to the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure as the exercise of the discretionary power. Whether a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms should be determined by taking into account various factors, such as the characteristics of duties, the contents and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose that the person intends to achieve through the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16274, Dec. 21, 2006).

In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff, as recognized earlier, made the female female employees feel displehy and sexual humiliation by taking advantage of superior status as a manager; and (b) made a public speech at the team leader’s meeting to his superior public health clinic and women, the head of the public health clinic and women, who are public officials, for 30 years; and (c) even if considering the fact that the Plaintiff had faithfully worked for 30 years and did not have any particular disciplinary action, the disposition in this case does not exceed the public interest, i.e., the credibility and dignity maintenance of the public officials intending to achieve the loss incurred by the Plaintiff; and (d) thus, it cannot be said that the disposition in this case is objectively unreasonable, or that the Plaintiff exceeded and abused the discretion of disciplinary action, because it

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Su-cheon, the presiding judge

Judges B.

Judge Cho Han-hoon

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Local Public Officials Act

Article 48 (Duty of Good Faith)

All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, and perform their duties faithfully.

Article 55 (Duty to Maintain Dignity)

No public official shall perform any act detrimental to his/her dignity.

Article 69 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action)

(1) If a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall request a disciplinary resolution and take a disciplinary measure according to the decision of disciplinary resolution:

1. When he/she violates this Act or an order issued under this Act or Municipal Ordinances or Municipal Rules of a local government;

2. Violation of official duties (including duties imposed in connection with the status of public officials by other Acts and subordinate statutes);

when he/she neglects or neglects his/her duties;

3. When he commits an act detrimental to his dignity as a public official.

(2) Where a public official to whom other Acts apply with respect to disciplinary action (including a State public official) is appointed as a public official to whom the provisions concerning guidance under this Act apply, disciplinary action against a person subject to disciplinary action under other Acts before his/her appointment shall be deemed to have taken place from the date on which the relevant grounds arise: Provided, That this shall not apply where a person has already been subject to disciplinary action

(3) If a public official in non-career service is appointed as one in career service, the grounds for disciplinary action under the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the disciplinary action against the public official in non-career service before such appointment shall be deemed to have occurred from the

(4) Where a public official in career service is appointed as a public official in non-career service, any ground for disciplinary action under the Acts and subordinate statutes governing disciplinary action against the relevant public official in career service before such appointment shall be deemed to have occurred from the date on which such ground arises.

Article 70 (Categories of Discipline)

Disciplinary action shall be classified into removal, dismissal, demotion, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand.