The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on May 1, 1986 and promoted to the Republic of Korea on July 2, 2012. From January 23, 2018 to February 14, 2019, the Plaintiff served in the E police station in the Seoul Regional Police Agency E police station and served in the police station from February 15, 2019.

On January 9, 2019, the staff I worked at the E police station criminal and criminal support team published a title "personal rights, reputation, and exclusion of duties on the ground that he/she does not follow unfair instructions" against the plaintiff at the internal network Gap report center of the National Police Agency, and the Seoul Local Police Agency's office was inspecting and investigating the plaintiff on January 11, 2019.

On February 15, 2019, the Defendant issued a personnel order ordering the Plaintiff to serve as an FFC.

(hereinafter “instant transfer disposition.” On March 6, 2019, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to make a minor disciplinary decision. On March 13, 2019, police officers of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Provincial Police Agency deliberated on the following grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, and then decided to “regument” and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result.

(hereinafter “instant reprimand disposition” and “each of the instant dispositions” in addition to the instant transfer disposition. A person subject to a request for a disciplinary resolution shall be at the time of service with the Criminal Department of the E police station (criminal support team leader),

A. On November 23, 2018, the competent team members demanded the result of the performance evaluation (hereinafter “reasons 1”) of the team members to present the result of the second performance evaluation (hereinafter “second performance evaluation”) in the statement recording room at the time of three times (hereinafter “statement 1”) and demanded that the result of the performance evaluation, which is the principle of the second non-disclosure, should be informed even though I rejected the performance evaluation on the grounds of “the security propriety of the chief of the criminal department.”

Accordingly, when I refused his request, I would like to ask the Secretary General of the state of responsibility whether it is possible to change the first performance rating of the I evaluated by him, and he will also be the secretary (I) who has been five months on the side of the I.