logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.02.04 2013구합20972
직권면직처분취소 청구의 소
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. From January 7, 1993, the Plaintiff was in charge of the distribution at the B post office to which the Joint Post Office belongs.

B. On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to the suspension of sentence of a fine of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the noise measurement) from the Changwon District Court's branch on February 6, 2013, and was subject to the revocation of the driver's license (the disqualified period of Class I driver's license for Class I driver's license and six months for Class II driver's license).

C. On February 19, 2013, the Defendant issued an ex officio dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground of Article 70(1)8 of the State Public Officials Act (i.e., when a certificate of qualification required to perform his/her duties in the relevant class becomes invalid or a license is revoked) and Article 2(1) of the Regulations on Disciplinary Action by the Korea Post’s Public Officials (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 1, 2013, the plaintiff filed a request for review with the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5-1 through 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was temporarily revoked.

Even if it is possible to deliver a bicycle or deliver it using a bicycle, it is difficult to conclude that it is impossible to perform the duties of a source of work. The rules on disciplinary action taken by a public official belonging to the Korea Post are merely the directives of the Korea Post, and are not external binding, and there is no external binding force. Moreover, in light of the fact that the above directives requires ex officio dismissal or heavy disciplinary resolution at the time of revocation of driver's license, it may not be taken ex officio dismissal, and the Plaintiff's difficult circumstances and the circumstances of drinking driving, etc., the instant

arrow