1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit incurred after filing the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the court of first instance is added with respect to the plaintiff

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s agent stated the briefs dated January 12, 2015 at the fifth date for pleading in this Court and withdrawn all the previous arguments that were not contained in the briefs.

Therefore, this Court examines only the arguments contained in the preparatory documents dated January 12, 2015, submitted by the Plaintiff, and the preparatory documents dated April 13, 2015 in supplement. A.

(1) As to the existence of the reasons for disposition, the defendant, on the ground that the plaintiff's ability to perform his/her duties is considerably lacking, was removed from his/her position.

However, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize them.

Therefore, the removal from position of this case is unlawful since there are no grounds for the removal from position.

(2) (A) Determination (A) “A lack of ability to perform duties” under Article 73-3(1)2 of the State Public Officials Act means a case where the pertinent public official lacks the ability to properly perform his/her duties with mental and physical skills (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu663 delivered on March 11, 1986, etc., concerning the meaning of reasons for ex officio dismissal under Article 70(1)2 of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4384, May 31, 1991, etc.). It does not require that the extent of the lack of capacity to perform duties is obvious.

(B) However, comprehensively taking account of the facts recognized by the first instance court and the circumstances cited by the first instance court, which are known through the entire purport of each of the statements and the entire arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 56, 63 through 68 (including the branch numbers) and the following circumstances, the Plaintiff is capable of performing his/her duties.