1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the grounds for appeal is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion;

(b) the relevant legislation;

C. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment

1) Whether the grounds for disciplinary action exist, whether the application of the grounds for disciplinary action is lawful, and whether there is a defect in the application of the grounds for disciplinary action, and the court's explanation on this part is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the grounds are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

3) Whether a disciplinary action is appropriate for a person who is a public official is subject to disciplinary action) is subject to the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary action as an exercise of discretionary authority is deemed to abuse the discretionary power, the disciplinary action may be unlawful. If a disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, the disciplinary action shall be deemed to be unlawful in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc., and the contents of the disciplinary action shall be deemed to be objectively unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du6951 delivered on November 26, 199). Meanwhile, whether the exercise of discretionary power is appropriate in a disciplinary action is based on the content and degree of the misconduct recognized as grounds for disciplinary action.