1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

From July 9, 2014 to January 3, 2016, the Plaintiff was in charge of urban management affairs while serving as the head of the urban planning team in the City Urban Design Department from July 9, 2014.

On July 2017, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do carried out a comprehensive audit of the Si on July 2, 2017. As a result of the audit, C, the Plaintiff, and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) in general or in charge of the urban management planning affairs, violated the duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act by unfairly altering the specific use area in relation to the decision of B Urban Management Planning (hereinafter “instant urban management plan”) in 2020, on the ground that C, the Plaintiff, and D were in violation of the duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act, and the request for heavy disciplinary action against C

On February 5, 2018, the Defendant demanded the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee to take a disciplinary action against each minor person pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff, etc. violated Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act, such as the grounds for the disciplinary action attached to attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action that disregards the opinion of the Ministry of Environment regarding strategic environmental impact assessment,” and the “unfair change of specific use areas determined by the Urban/Gun management plan” (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”).

On March 12, 2018, the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee recognized all of the grounds for the above grounds for disciplinary action, which made a decision on disciplinary action against the plaintiff, etc. on the ground that the violation of Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act constitutes Article 69 (1) 1 of the same Act due to an act violating Article 48 of the same Act.

On March 28, 2018, according to the above disciplinary resolution, the Defendant took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on March 30, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Gyeonggi-do Appeals Commission on April 23, 2018, but the said appeals review committee on June 11, 2018.