beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Quotation of the first instance judgment
A. In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff suffered property and mental damage due to the removal of this case, the removal of this case, the disciplinary procedure, etc., and sought compensation against the Defendant. The part related to the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal (including the additional grounds for appeal) cannot be deemed to be significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial. The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are justified even if the evidence submitted to this court was based on the evidence presented in the first instance trial.
B. Accordingly, the reasoning of this court’s judgment is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following items between the 12th and 13th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In the case of a disciplinary action against a state public official in addition, when the person having an authority to take a disciplinary action intends to impose an unfavorable measure by intentionally using a means of causing disciplinary action against a public official under the intent to put him/her at a disadvantage, even though there is no reason to take the disciplinary action, or when it is objectively evident that the facts constituting the reason for disciplinary action cannot be deemed to constitute the reason for disciplinary action, and even if it is objectively obvious and reasonable, such circumstances can be easily identified, as in the case of a disciplinary action, if it is evident that the exercise of the authority to take a disciplinary action is not permissible in light of our sound social norms and social norms, the disciplinary action is denied, and it causes an illegal mental pain to the other party, thereby constituting a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da4901, Sept. 24, 2002; 201Da2013Da20831, Dec. 26, 2013).