beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on September 16, 2013 is revoked for three months.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From September 24, 2008 to July 12, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a person in charge of design, construction, etc. of “B” (hereinafter “instant project”) at the facility of the waterworks headquarters in Chungcheong-si from September 24, 2008 to July 2, 2012, and is currently serving in the construction of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
B. On September 16, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension for three months based on Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act and Article 2(1) of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Local Public Officials in Cheongju-si on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following acts and breached the duty of good faith as stipulated in Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act:
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”. - - The Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the shop design service of the instant project was designed as a patent technology, such as Cheongju City Design Advisory Committee’s technical advice through the Cheongju City Design Advisory Committee’s technical advice, and that the design service of the instant project was designed as a patent technology, such as Cheongju City Design Advisory Committee’s technical advice and could not achieve the purpose of the project without applying the patent technology. However, the Plaintiff was aware
4. The specifications designed as a patent product was arbitrarily modified to enter into a contract with the above company upon the request of the Vice-President D to supply the slot collection machine from C (hereinafter referred to as “C”)
(2) On April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff received and reviewed a written review opinion that it is desirable to take measures to enable the Plaintiff to be provided with the technology transferred from the responsible supervisor of the instant project on April 10, 2012, and neglected this, and taken measures to ensure that the Plaintiff would be provided with the same technology as or higher than the original design company (including the local enterprises) for the purpose of concluding a free contract with C for the purpose of concluding the contract with C.