(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.01.23 2018누62470

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) 서울고등법원 2019.01.23 2018누62470

견책처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff was on the part of the Army Co., Ltd., and was on the part of the BP C Co., Ltd.

On August 21, 2017, the Defendant took disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the following grounds exist, and this constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity (including violence and verbal violence) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On March 11, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) served as the head of the relevant team; and (b) served as the head of the relevant team and the head of the relevant office located in Macheon-si (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) assaulted the victim by taking into consideration the victim’s left face one time with his/her drinking hand, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Reason 1”); (c) around March 13, 2017, on the ground that the victim delayed in his/her duty of care in the first team and the head of the relevant agency and the office located in Macheon-si (hereinafter referred to as “victim”). (d) around April 12:40 on April 7, 2017, the victim did not appear to have his/her duty of care to maintain the victim’s life on the ground that he/she did not raise the victim’s dignity on the ground that he/she would have been aware that he/she would have to do so during his/her duty of care.” (hereinafter referred to as “the victim would not pay the victim”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not have committed assault or abusive language against the victim, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful as not recognized by the grounds for the relevant disciplinary action. (2) The Plaintiff’s motion fees that the Plaintiff abused discretion wanted to take the front place, and there was no history of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.08.14 2018구합10175

-수원지방법원 2017.11.14 2017구합65280

-춘천지방법원 2018.06.05 2017구합50070

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2021.04.20 2021고정64

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.05.25 2017가합12931