(영문) 서울고등법원 2011.12.9.선고 2011누18313 판결

A. The reasons are as follows: (a) the court’s entry of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the additional determination of the foregoing paragraph; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

B. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have any grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, or that the Plaintiff’s act did not reach the degree of dismissal of the Plaintiff, thereby making a political choice to dismiss the Plaintiff.

Some of the examiners of the first review were forced the Plaintiff to select a specific work, and the content was reported to the media, and the film-related organizations announced the Plaintiff’s letter of demand for resignation as seen earlier. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant issued the instant disposition for political purposes even though there was no grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s act did not reach the degree of dismissal of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, the instant disposition takes place as a ground for disciplinary action that damages the fairness and objectivity of the examination of the independent film production support project, and the relevant grounds for disciplinary action exist, and the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have exceeded or abused the scope of discretionary power. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.