logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2015.10.30 2015누5376
정직처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 1990 after the Plaintiff graduated from the Korea Army Academy at Army, the Plaintiff was in the second militia rank in the Army. From February 7, 2013 to November 201, 2013, the Plaintiff served as the senior commander of the Korea Army Group C D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “affiliated”) and served as the senior commander of the Korea Army Headquarters F Co., Ltd from November 2013 to the present date.

B. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff violated his/her duty to obey the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) around 08:0 on July 31, 2013; (b) around 08:0 on the same day; (c) on September 17:30; (d) on October 2, 2013, the command and control office, the fleet commander; (b) G, the captain of the first floor group; (c) the captain of the HJ; (d) the Minister of Personnel Affairs; (d) the Minister of Justice; (d) the Minister of Labor; (e) the Minister of Labor; (e) the Vice Minister of K; (e) the so-called B/L commander; and (e) the subordinate Ma of the ammunition; and (e) the Plaintiff violated his/her duty to obey the disciplinary action against a civilian military employee under his/her control from March 2013 to October 2013.

C. On October 23, 2013, according to the above disciplinary resolution, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 56 and Article 57(1)3 of the Military Personnel Management Act; and (b) [Attachment 1] of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Army (hereinafter “Disciplinary Regulations”); (c) a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for one-month suspension from office due to a breach of duty (violation 1); (d) a breach of duty (Habitual insult); and (e) a breach of duty (Habitual verbal violence) a breach of duty (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an appeal, but the Ministry of National Defense decided to dismiss the appeal on December 23, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has a large number of reward experience due to excellent military command ability.

arrow