본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
울산지방법원 2015.11.05 2014구합2465

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. On September 1, 1995, the Plaintiff was appointed to the senior secretary of the U.S. District Court. On March 11, 201, the Plaintiff was appointed to the chief clerk of the U.S. District Court and was in charge of registration affairs from July 11, 201 to the Ulsan District Court.

B. On February 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was indicted on the charge that “the Plaintiff acquired pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 10 million in relation to the business and received a bribe.” The Ulsan District Court convicted the Defendant of the above facts charged, which recognized that the Defendant was guilty on October 31, 2013, the suspension of qualification for one year and the additional collection of KRW 10 million was sentenced.

Since then, the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed, but all appeals were dismissed on February 5, 2014, and the Plaintiff appealed and appealed, but the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive on June 12, 2014.

C. On February 7, 2014, after the judgment of the above appellate court was rendered, the Defendant referred the Plaintiff to the Disciplinary Committee on the ground that the Plaintiff’s above act constituted Article 78(1)1 of the State Public Officials Act. On August 28, 2014, following the resolution of the Busan High Court Disciplinary Committee, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition review on September 15, 2014, but the court appeals review committee decided to dismiss the petition on November 13, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Dong-Support Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) was the Plaintiff’s vicarious sale of the housing C in Ulsansan (name “D apartment” and “E apartment” after remodeling; hereinafter “instant apartment”) was entrusted to the real estate sales agency, and paid KRW 10 million out of the purchase price of KRW 220 million to the real estate sales agency.