The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On December 28, 2005, the Plaintiff is a person appointed as a postal service officer at the Seoul Gangnam Post Office as a postal service officer.

On August 1, 2019, the Plaintiff was found to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol of about 0.168% of the blood alcohol concentration at the 4km section from the Do in front of the parking lot of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office 619 Seoul, to the front road of the Cridge in Songpa-gu Seoul, and was subject to the revocation of the driver's license (class 1 common, class 2 common, class 2 common, and class 2 motor vehicles) on September 22, 2019.

On September 25, 2019, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff’s license necessary to perform his/her duties in his/her class and position was revoked and requested the Seoul Regional Administration General Disciplinary Committee to present its opinion on the disposition of ex officio dismissal by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 70 of the State Public Officials Act.

On October 15, 2019, the above general disciplinary committee decided that the plaintiff consented to ex officio dismissal and notified the defendant thereof.

On October 25, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition ex officio by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “when the license necessary to perform his/her duties in the relevant class and position is revoked and it is impossible to perform his/her duties.”

(2) On January 14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a petition on personnel affairs with the Ministry of Personnel Management (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, on January 14, 2020, the said appeals review committee rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition on personnel affairs.

[Reasons for Recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case by the Plaintiff, based on the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap’s evidence No. 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings, was lawful. Thus, the Plaintiff’s revocation of a driver’s license was lacking in the Plaintiff’s qualification

or may not be deemed to constitute a case in which it has become difficult to perform the work in charge.

The instant disposition is governed by the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials.