1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the “member” of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “member”; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The findings of fact and judgments of the first instance court shall not be different, considering the allegations and evidence added in the trial. 2. Additional decision

A. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the benefit actually acquired by the Plaintiff is not entirely a service payment, but a service opportunity is provided, and the service itself is faithfully performed, the removal disposition is unlawful as it deviates from or abused the discretion.

B. Whether to take any disciplinary action against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is subject to disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, and a disciplinary action upon which the person having authority to take the disciplinary action exercises discretion is illegal only when it is deemed that the person has abused discretion because it has considerably lost validity under

In order for a disciplinary action against a public official to have remarkably lost validity under the social norms, the content and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary action, the administrative purpose that the person intends to achieve through the disciplinary action, and the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary action, etc. shall be considered as clearly unreasonable in light of the relevant factors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du29540, Feb. 27, 2014; 2010Du16172, Nov. 11, 2010); and in addition, if it is sufficient to recognize the validity of the relevant disciplinary action even if some of the grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized, the same shall not apply to the maintenance of the relevant disciplinary action, even if there are other grounds for disciplinary action.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6620 Delivered on September 24, 2002