beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s removal from office against the Plaintiff on May 8, 2015 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 2, 2005, the Defendant was appointed as “B” affiliated with the Kimpo-si, and served from April 2007 to September 2012 as Kimpo Urban Planning Bureau, C, etc., and was in charge of performing duties such as permitting development-restricted areas.
B. On April 24, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee received a bribe equivalent to KRW 60 million in total from D on March 5, 2010 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff received a bribe of KRW 30 million in total from D on March 5, 2010), and the Defendant removed the bribe of KRW 30 million from E on March 31, 2010, and made payment to D on November 201, 2010 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff received a bribe of KRW 60,000 in total from early 200,000” (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the bribe of KRW 30,00,000) from the Defendant’s disciplinary action (the instant disciplinary action surcharge was imposed on KRW 30,00,00). The Defendant removed the bribe of KRW 50,000 from the Plaintiff on November 5, 205 (the instant disciplinary action surcharge was imposed on KRW 00,000).
C. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the Gyeonggi-do Appeal Committee on the above disposition, and on August 31, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do Appeal Committee rendered a decision to the effect that “The removal of a bribe related to the Plaintiff’s duties was lawful, and the disposition of imposing disciplinary surcharge was rendered on the firstman on November 2010, which became the ground for the imposition of disciplinary surcharge, and thus the disposition of imposing disciplinary surcharge was revoked.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1's entries and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not a bribe but a bribe, and the Plaintiff was acquitted. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.
(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
C. The facts of recognition ① The Plaintiff received a solicitation from 'D to the effect that convenience should be considered in its work, and cashier's checks on March 5, 2010.