1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 14, 2013, the Plaintiff was appointed to B post offices as functional class 9 Information and Communications Institute (Special Accounting Board) and carried out the distribution business in the said post offices mail sector.

On July 24:00 on July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff abandoned approximately 705 copies of the non-delivery postal item (645 copies, 10 copies, 20 copies of the National Tax Service) to the river side of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the ground that it is difficult for all public officials to perform their duties in good faith, and reported the discovery by civilians on the following day, thereby significantly exposing the external images of postal services.

B. On July 25, 2013, the Defendant demanded a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff to the ordinary disciplinary committee of the Incheon Regional Administration, and on August 2, 2013, upon the disciplinary resolution of the said committee, the Plaintiff’s act was against Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity) of the State Public Officials Act and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78(1)1 of the State Public Officials Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act constituted grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78(1)1 of the State Public Officials Act.

(A) Evidence No. 1, hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (c)

On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and requested an appeals review to the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration, but was dismissed on November 25, 2013.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although it was true that the Plaintiff alleged the same misconduct as the grounds for disciplinary action of the instant disposition was committed, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s duties were considerably excessive and the Plaintiff’s duties were carried out by up to two new walls, the instant disposition meets the criteria set forth in Article 2(1) [Attachment 2] of the Rules on Disciplinary Action on Public Officials belonging to the Postal Services Headquarters, the instant disposition constitutes abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff as compared to the public interest to be achieved.