1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. With respect to the instant claim that the Plaintiff seeks the revocation of the disposition of demotion and the revocation of the collection disposition, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claims (the claim for the revocation of the collection disposition).

The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant, as only the defendant appealed.

2. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the defendant's assertion of "Habitual and repetitive leave of work" at the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary or additional decision】 Following the 7th day of the judgment, the following judgments should be added. According to the statements of the employees who provide that “the Defendant: (a) there were many cases where the Plaintiff had left the place of work without complying with the hours of commuting to and from work; (b) the Plaintiff asserts that he had left the place of work habitually; (c) however, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff applied for overtime work and did not work at a designated place even after receiving an order of overtime work from the person with the authority to approve the contract, and the fact that the plaintiff attended the Seoul Metropolitan Government Public University without being working at the designated place can be recognized that the plaintiff left the workplace in itself.

However, local governments have their public officials apply for overtime work before performing overtime work and obtain prior approval from the approving authority is a measure taken to prevent the waste of the budget through the application for overtime work allowances indiscreet time, so the plaintiff is deemed to have worked overtime at night, not at regular working hours, such as the plaintiff.