beta
Text
1. Defendant Korea Telecommunications Research Institute: KRW 10,00,000 for the Plaintiff and its related amount from February 18, 2017 to October 17, 2018.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The defendant Korean Institute of Electronic Communication (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Institute") is a public corporation that conducts research activities related to electronic communications.
In the Defendant Research Institute, there is a D Research Institute, and there is an E Research Center under the D Research Institute.
Defendant C served as the director of the D Research Institute from January 1, 2013 to February 10, 2016, and currently serves as the researcher of the Defendant Research Institute.
Defendant B served as the head of the E Research Office from February 18, 2013 to February 28, 2016, and is currently in office as the responsible researcher of the Defendant Research Institute.
From April 22, 2013 to June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was working in the E Research Center as the responsible researcher of the Defendant Research Institute from April 22, 2013 to June 30, 2015, and currently is in office as the responsible researcher of the F department.
2013. 3. 11. 회의비 유용에 관한 내부 보고 원고는 2013. 3. 11. 원고가 속해 있던 부서(G연구팀)에서 회의가 개최되지 않았음에도 마치 회의가 개최된 것처럼 허위 문서를 작성하여 회의비를 배정받은 다음 이를 매월 개최되는 팀웍데이 행사에 유용해 온 문제(앞으로 ‘회의비 유용’ 문제라고 한다)를 당시 연구원의 원장이었던 H에게 보고하였다
(B) On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff reported an act of corruption to the competent authority on January 5, 2015 (hereinafter “instant report”). On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the act of corruption to the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, which is the competent authority of the Defendant Research Institute
(B) The Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning referred to as the “instant report”). The Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning), after audit, took measures to recover 84 million won for unfair meeting costs executed in 2012, and the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission
[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 28 is without dispute. The plaintiff's assertion of plaintiff's assertion of Gap evidence of this case.