(영문) 서울행정법원 2012.5.4. 선고 2011구합44273 판결

A. On December 2, 1985, the Plaintiff was appointed as an administrative journal belonging to the Ministry of Labor on May 16, 1995, and then promoted to an administrative master on May 16, 1995. After which, the Plaintiff, via Seoul Southern Regional Labor Office, Seoul Southern Regional Labor Office, Seoul dong Local Labor Office, Thai Regional Labor Office, Do Labour Office, Gangwon Local Labor Office, and Gangnam Branch Office, worked in the Seoul Northern Site Office from September 1, 2008 to August 22, 2010. (2) The Ministry of Employment and Labor established and implemented a plan for strengthening the capacity of the working-level public officials (Grade 6) from August 23, 2010 to October 11, 2010, for the purpose of strengthening the capacity of the public officials lacking in performing their duties, and the Plaintiff was clearly released from the Seoul Northern Site Office from 0.10 to 10.30 on August 23, 2010.

D. On January 17, 2011, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to work as a standby (for three months from January 17, 201 to April 16, 201) and imposed an efficient plan for unemployment recognition that is appropriate for regional characteristics through comparative analysis of the method of unemployment recognition in the present model operation as a research task. The Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff submit a report on the said research task by March 16, 201, which was submitted at the time of the on-site support activities, and submitted a revised report that only the date of preparation of the report that “the status of duties related to unemployment benefits and improvement measures related to unemployment benefits,” which was submitted at the time of the on-site support activities.

E. On June 29, 2011, the Defendant, following a resolution by the Ministry of Employment and Labor of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, dismissed the Plaintiff from office (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on July 8, 2011.

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee, but was dismissed on October 24, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the defendant did not fall under the person lacking the ability to perform his duties, he was released from his position against the plaintiff, and the disposition of this case was also made in this case. (The plaintiff does not point out the specific facts of illegality and illegality of the disposition of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion should be judged as above.)

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The following circumstances recognized by the above facts, the evidence as mentioned above, and the purport of the whole oral argument are as follows: ① the Ministry of Employment and Labor has chosen the plaintiff as a public official in practical service (class 6 or below) subject to the evaluation and selection committee's resolution; ② thereafter, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to improve his/her ability through the ability enhancement education for three months and on-site support activities; ② the defendant judged that the plaintiff who received the lowest grade in the education and on-site support lacks the ability to perform his/her duties through strict evaluation by the Evaluation Committee; ② the defendant issued a waiting order to improve his/her ability to perform duties once again for three months, and issued research tasks, but the plaintiff neglected efforts to improve his/her ability to perform his/her duties, such as failure to perform his/her duties. ③ The plaintiff cannot be seen as being subject to repeated evaluation of his/her ability to perform his/her duties for two years after he/she failed to meet his/her ability to perform his/her duties; ③ The plaintiff's efforts to improve his/her ability to perform his/her duties for the last two years after he/she failed to perform his/her duties.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.