1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 4, 2002, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant Company as Grade 3 in general service, and served as the head of the general affairs team, the facility management team, the C library, and the D Juvenile Training Center so far. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was in charge of the traffic operation team’s affairs of dealing with the income from over-the-counter credit cards.

B. However, on July 12, 2013, the Defendant took a disciplinary action for January 1 of the salary reduction (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) on the grounds of the negligence of duties related to revenue from off-road off-road credit cards (violation of duty of good faith) and the nonperformance of duties due to the division of duties (violation of duty of care).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. According to Article 15 of the Rules on the Personnel Management of the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff, the assignment of an employee to a loading station shall be placed in consideration of major, academic background, qualifications, careers, functions, and other official needs. The Defendant, without considering such circumstances, did not have sufficient time and had the Plaintiff, who has failed to utilize the computer, take charge of handling revenues from credit cards.

The plaintiff made efforts to take part in Internet X-gu lectures to perform the duties assigned to him/her, and was used due to stress caused by work, so that he/she was able to take part in the hospital.

The defendant was punished from the beginning on the ground that he was unable to perform his duties after being in charge of the duties that the plaintiff was unable to perform, with the intention of punishing the plaintiff.

The defendant's disciplinary action in this case is unfair because it was issued on the ground of poor performance of duties, and when compared with other cases, one month of salary reduction is in violation of equity.

B. We examine the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and whether a disciplinary measure should be taken against the person subject to disciplinary action due to grounds for disciplinary action, in principle, is placed at the discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary action, so that the disciplinary measure is unlawful.