logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.07.25 2019구합5118
강등처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 9, 2015 to April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff is a public official who served as a local facility guard in urban development and urban development under the Defendant’s jurisdiction from January 9 to April 5, 2018.

B. On August 1, 2018, the Defendant decided to impose heavy disciplinary and disciplinary additional charges on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act by offering and receiving entertainment twice from C, a constructor, on August 1, 2018. On August 27, 2018, the Cheongbuk-do Personnel Committee decided to impose heavy disciplinary and disciplinary additional charges on the Plaintiff on the grounds of the following disciplinary grounds (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant disciplinary grounds”, and individually classified into the grounds for disciplinary grounds Nos. 1 and 2).

At the time of March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff received 192,00 won in total (27,420 won per person, 27,420 won less than won, hereinafter the same shall apply) from five public officials belonging to B such as the head of the road facilities department D and the representative of G Co., Ltd, a constructor within the jurisdiction, in the restaurant of “F” located in “F”, and received a contact with the Plaintiff, etc.

(A) The Plaintiff received entertainment charge of KRW 2,930,00 by using credit cards from the representative of G Company C, and then received entertainment charge of KRW 2,930,00 by using credit cards from H.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 2”) C.

On September 7, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of dismissal and disciplinary surcharge amounting to KRW 2,957,420 on the basis of Articles 69(1) and 69-2 of the Local Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disposition of disciplinary surcharge”). D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed a petition review with the Cheongbuk-do appeals review committee, and the said review committee fully recognized the grounds for the instant disciplinary action on December 4, 2018. However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff worked for at least 26 years in the course of creating an industrial complex and attracting large enterprises, etc., the Plaintiff has paid excellent results.

arrow