logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.03.31 2016구합78349
소청심사위원회결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 1, 198, the Plaintiff was appointed as Fire Captain on August 7, 2008, and was promoted to Fire Captain on July 16, 2010, Fire Captain on March 28, 2012, and Fire Captain on February 2, 2015.

From May 7, 2013 to November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, as C affiliated with B, performed duties by combining D, E, F, and G as C affiliated with the Ministry of Public Safety and Security from the following day until February 1, 2015.

1. The Plaintiff: (a) requested the head of the former H headquarters (“former H headquarters”) to suspend the audit of the instant case by telephone several times from the Plaintiff’s origin with respect to the introduction of H headquarters equipment (hereinafter “instant audit”); (b) ordered the former head of the DJ to suspend the audit of the instant case by telephone; and (c) indirectly ordered K of the former planning and inspection leader from July 25, 2014 to suspend the audit.

As a result, the Plaintiff did not report to the superior Vice-President B, etc. and exercised pressure without explanation as to the grounds for suspending audit.

2. The reduction of the H Headquarters Audit Report (hereinafter “Audit Report of this case”) was conducted on August 2014 by finding K around the end of August, 2014, by requesting a draft of the Audit Report of this case prepared by L in charge of previous planning and inspection to output one copy of the audit report.

The Plaintiff, without any special reason, instructed K to simplify the terms stated in the above audit report at least two times, and K to interpret the Plaintiff’s instructions to the effect that K is considered as one of the employees of I and H headquarters, thereby modifying the Plaintiff’s “performance of duty” recorded in the above audit report as “performance of duty”, “national treasury loss” as “an excessive appropriation of the budget,” and omitting the details of the misconduct.

arrow