(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.01.16 2018구합1845

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) 전주지방법원 2019.01.16 2018구합1845

해임처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on August 5, 1989, and was promoted to the police officer on October 1, 2014. From July 15, 2016 to November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff served in the Southern Police Station’s Living Safety and B District.

B. The Defendant issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on December 7, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) and violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

The Plaintiff of the Disciplinary Reason is a person in charge of crime prevention and patrol from July 15, 2016 to November 30, 2017, who was in charge of crime prevention and patrol at the Southern Police Station’s Living Safety and B District, from November 29, 2017 to November 23:00, and is divided into members of the Cheongwon-gu Ho-dong Ho-dong Ho-dong Ho-dong and the Soci-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si and Mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si and Mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) and 800m alcohol content on the same day.

It caused a single traffic accident that meets the signal props installed on the right side, and the driving of drinking has been discovered to the police officers so that it damages their dignity as police officers.

C. On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action and filed a petition review with the Ministry of Personnel Management, but the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition review on April 25, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disciplinary action is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff worked as a police officer for about 26 years.

참조조문

-국가공무원법 제56조

-국가공무원법 제57조

-국가공무원법 제63조

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2014.10.16 2014고정272

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2019.09.18 2019고단392

-서울북부지방법원 2020.02.14 2019고단2793

-청주지방법원 2012.11.09 2012고단1747

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2019.02.21 2018고단1871