1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a public official on December 21, 1990 and was in charge of driving duties at the Taean-Gun Office B of Taean-gun.

B. On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol of approximately 0.187% in the section of about 1km from May 3, 2016 to the road in front of the agricultural products collection center in the Nam-gu, Taean-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, to the roads in front of the agricultural products collection center (hereinafter “the instant drinking driving”). On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was indicted with a fine of KRW 4 million by a prosecutor of the Daejeon District Office in the Seo-gu, Daejeon District Office and the summary order was finalized around that time. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff was revoked the driver’s license by the Commissioner of the Chungcheongnam-do Police Agency.

C. On September 8, 2016, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act due to the instant drunk driving and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 69(1)3 of the same Act.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review of an appeal with the local appeals review committee of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, but was dismissed on November 3, 2016. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, as described in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserts that “the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.”

B. Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken against a person subject to disciplinary action, who is a public official, is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary power is recognized to have abused the discretionary power assigned to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, it shall be deemed unlawful, and if the disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity by social norms.