2017Nu90201 Revocation of disposition of revocation of class action

A

The Minister of Foreign Affairs

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap12058 Decided March 13, 2015

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu39172 Decided April 7, 2016

Supreme Court Decision 2016Du38167 Decided December 22, 2017

October 5, 2018

November 9, 2018

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's demotion made against the plaintiff on June 12, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows. This part of this Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2.3 to 5.20) except for the following parts. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○ 18th Supreme Court rendered a judgment(Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Court 160, 2014 High Gohap413 (Joint) and 812 (Joint)).” (Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Gohap160, 2014 High Gohap 413 (Joint) and 812 (Joint)). The Seoul High Court appealed against the prosecutor, but the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s appeal against the Plaintiff on February 3, 2016 (Seoul High Court 2015548). The Prosecutor appealed again on June 8, 2017 (Supreme Court 2016Do3411), but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s appeal against the Plaintiff on June 8, 2017 (Supreme Court 2016Do3411). Accordingly, the judgment of innocence against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The reasons for this part are as follows, except for the part added as follows, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 6, No. 1 to No. 7, No. 9). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420

In addition, the following parts are added between ○○ 7, 9, 9, '.' and '.' Therefore, the following parts are added:

In addition, even if Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration No. 91, Sept. 2, 2014; hereinafter the same) is a discretionary mitigation provision, the Defendant’s failure to take public mitigation against the Plaintiff in light of the purport of the above provision, the number and contents of the Plaintiff’s public service is an abuse of discretion

B. Relevant legislation

The reasons for this part are as stated in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(c) Relevant legal principles;

1) Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act provides that “All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, and perform their duties faithfully.” Such duty of good faith is the most fundamental and important duty imposed on public officials, which is to ensure the public interest as much as possible and to prevent the disadvantages therefrom, and to faithfully perform their duties in good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu3161, May 23, 1989; 2017Du47472, Nov. 9, 2017).

2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was acquitted of all the charges of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, preparation of false official document, uttering of false official document, abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights. However, this is not a judgment on a violation of the public official’s duty of good faith, but a judgment on the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, preparation of false official document, uttering of false official document, and exercise of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act may be separately determined whether it constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith under the State Public Officials Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du472, supra, etc.).

D. Whether the ground for disciplinary action No. 1 of this case exists

1) Facts of recognition

A) The Government of the Republic of Korea established the third master plan for overseas resources development (2007 to 2016), and emphasized the importance of enhancing the self-reliance ability of major energy resources, such as petroleum, gas, and six strategic minerals. In order to implement the above master plan, since the establishment of and support for diplomatic relations with countries with abundant resources was important, the Republic of Korea has re-established the Embassy of the Republic of Korea at K and designated the said Embassy as an energy cooperation diplomatic mission around September 2008. However, Damond was not included in the six strategic minerals set forth in the above master plan.

B) On March 2008, L used to explore V professors affiliated with the S University, and received a result of the research that the quantity of Damond estimated store of the instant mineral deposit was approximately KRW 736 million. The result of the research was based on the UN Development Plan from 1982 to 1987 the Qu’s report on the mineral deposit survey report in Q region from the United Nations Development Plan. The report states that Q Qu’s compost level is abundant. The anticipated dignity is different depending on the place and is 0.3 to 0.7 square meters. However, the Embassy of the Republic of Korea sent three times to the Republic of Korea, North Africa, etc. on the press report based on the results of the research. The purpose of the research was that the access needs to be prudented until the date of entry into the said report falls short of objective data and the volume of access is needed by a specialized institution through exploration.

On November 208, 2008, around the time when the government-level support and cooperation with respect to the instant mineral deposit development project was requested to the Plaintiff. Over the period of 2002, L acquired part of the shares of M whose net loss had been continuously accumulated from around 2002, and acquired M’s control through capital increase with capital increase issued by a third party, thereby making it possible to view the same effect as being listed on the market bypassing to the market. However, M’s capital erosion rate was 40% in 2009 and 43% in 2010, and recorded the net loss in the year 2009 and 2010.

C) Although the Damond store quantity of the instant mineral deposit is not clearly clearly known and it was not verified that the company of the zero side has the ability to promote the development project of the Damond mineral deposit due to its poorness, the Plaintiff was in the state of not verifying whether the company has the ability to promote the development project of the Damond mineral deposit, upon request of I.

The home State (UP) requested K Ambassador X of the Republic of Korea to cooperate in the development of L's multilomond mineral deposits by sending a domain to K.

On February 17, 2009, X Ambassador respondeded to the effect that the survey of the UN Development Plan is a simple basic survey, and therefore, V professor announced that the quantity of mineral deposits of this case is 700 million won and 700 million won and can be verified through the actual exploration. According to the person concerned with K mineral department, the exploration and development of rare mineral resources such as Dmond is very low possibility of success, and therefore, at the early stage, Cho Man-man will take part in full-time, large and significant companies that come and are expected to take part in mining, and it is one of the ambiguous small companies in some respects.

D) L on January 21, 2009, the estimated quantity of the instant mineral deposit to the K Government on January 21, 2009

416,150,236 stories were submitted a final exploration report stating the following. The estimated store volume was measured by the method of identifying the quantity of Damond originals (hereinafter referred to as “average dignity”) composed of one sample, and then multiplying the body volume of the stratos to which the sample belongs. According to the above final exploration report, the average dignity of the gravel layer of the instant mineral deposits was calculated by 0.304 square meters and 0.340 square meters, the average dignity of the calendar layer was calculated by 0.340 square meters and 0.340 square meters. Furthermore, according to the above final exploration report, if the store volume of the gravel story was 230,236 square meters, the store capacity of the calendar story was 415,920,00 square meters, and most of the estimated quantity of the calendar layer was able to suffer from the average quantity of the omons on the 1st, 300th,000 square meters of the calendar story, the average quantity of the production otos was not ever.

E) In such a situation, from May 2, 2009 to November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff visited Africa countries including K as members of Y organization. At the time, the Plaintiff had interview with K Government-related persons, such as the Minister of the Korea Mining Department, and continued to engage in support activities for acquiring L’s right to develop the instant mineral deposits.

F) L submitted a final report attached to the development plan for the instant mineral deposit on March 5, 2009, and submitted an environmental impact assessment report on April 27, 2009, and the K Government demanded an additional investigation into the “new maro story omitted from the final exploration report on L around July 2009.” Accordingly L, from August 2009 to February 201, 200, conducted an additional investigation for calculating the estimated maro layer 6 areas with the new maro story (which submitted a report after priority investigation on one area, and conducted an additional investigation on five areas thereafter) of the instant mineral deposit.

On January 7, 2010, K Ambassador X sent a full text to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to report the progress of the above additional propagation work, and the above full text was transferred to the Plaintiff as a copy. However, the above full text is divided into “a fixed mineral deposit, estimated mineral deposit, and anticipated mineral deposit in this case according to the certainty of the reserve.” While a large number of 416,150,000 of the mineral deposit in this case was an estimated store, there was an indication that the French Geological Resource Research Institute was investigating the relevant area, but it was not verified sufficient dmon store, and failed to attract investment due to high exploration costs (However, the Plaintiff asserted that the exploration of the above Geological Resource Research Institute was not an exploration into the mineral deposit in this case, and the Defendant also did not present accurate data on this issue. Meanwhile, at the time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ambassador at the time, viewed that the previous development of the mineral deposit in this case and the development of the mineral deposit in this case were high in terms of the development outlook of the project.

L, as seen earlier, the determination that an additional investigation into the new reverse cancer shall be conducted

In addition, the average dysmond average dysium 0.02 0.02 m, which is considerably lower than the average dysium (0.340 gss/m) recorded in the previous final exploration report. L submitted an additional report containing the above results of the survey to the government of Seocho around March 2010, and submitted all documents to conclude the development agreement for the development of the mineral deposits of this case in the future.

G) Around February 2010, the Plaintiff arranged a place to have the DB interview with the D Office, and I had the opportunity to explain the DB regarding the development project of the instant mineral deposit. In addition, the Plaintiff visited the African country as a member of the 'Y organization' from May 3, 2010 to May 14, 2010, and the representative members, including AB, who are the representative head of the 'Y' organization, visited K while visiting the African country as a member of the 'Y organization'. On May 11, 2010, the representative members, including AB, who are the representative head of the 'Y' organization, participated in the deliberation council between the relevant ministries of the K government to discuss whether to conclude the development agreement on the instant mineral deposit, and participated in support activities for the acquisition of the right to develop the instant mineral deposit.

After that, on June 15, 2010, K was finally selected as a priority cooperation station at the 'Plow- and free integrated meeting for the selection of the priority cooperation station' (the plaintiff was present at the meeting above), and L entered into the development agreement on the development of the mineral deposits of this case with the K government on July 9, 2010, and the K government acquired the development right with the term of 25 years with respect to the mineral deposits of this case from the P date.

H) The Plaintiff prepared and distributed the first news report materials on the day following L’s acquisition of the right to develop, and stated the said news report materials as “The amount of multimond store of the instant mineral deposit is approximately 4.2 billion ("95-97 United Nations Development Plan" and “the result of the Scket exploration team exploration in the year of 07).”

However, prior to the distribution of the first news report data, the Plaintiff stated that the basis for the quantity of a multimond store of the instant mineral deposit was based on the data on the zero side. In addition, the Korea Exchange pointed out that the said estimated quantity was not objectively verified. Accordingly, M publicly announced as the autonomous disclosure of the acquisition of the right to develop the instant mineral deposit, while M publicly announced as the acquisition of the right to develop the instant mineral deposit, the quantity of the multimond store of the instant mineral deposit was not publicly announced.

I) After that, when the media raises various doubts about the economic feasibility of the instant mineral deposit's multilomon store quantity and the mineral deposit development project, the Plaintiff distributed the second report materials on the date additional to this end. The report materials include "The first report materials are based on the announcement of the K Government", "The resource holding government verified whether the method of exploration is appropriate in the course of resource exploration, whether there is any falsity or exaggeration in the exploration report, and whether there is no violation of local laws and regulations, and the K Government officially recognized the result report of L's exploration."

However, while preparing the second report materials, the plaintiff is actually prepared by the K government in the course of exploration.

In light of the fact that the first news report material is based on the public announcement of the K government, the first news report material resulted in the misunderstanding that the sum of "not less than 4.20 million won" recorded in the first news report material is officially recognized by the K government. Rather, at an interview conducted on December 14, 2011 by the K Board of Audit and Inspection, etc., who conducted a survey on the distribution of news report material by the K Embassy’s staff and the K Embassy’s K Embassy’s staff, and the K government’s opinion on the distribution of the material, the Plaintiff did not object to the K government’s opinion on the distribution of material to the K Minerals’s opinion on the first news report material, which was inappropriate for the K government to return to the K government’s opinion on the first news report material to the K government. As the K mining advisory board did not object to the K government’s opinion on the distribution of material on the news report material.

(j) On the other hand, M’s share is at least 3,465 won per P date prior to the distribution of the first news report data.

On January 10, 201, a rapid increase in KRW 4.6 times as such, and as such, from December 27, 2010 to January 12, 2011, three executive officers, etc. of the said company sold KRW 228,00 shares, and the said company sold KRW 204,222 shares to KRW 5.5 billion in total, and after the date when the representative of the said company U.S. sold the preemptive rights equivalent to KRW 750,554 shares outside of the place, and acquired profits of KRW 5.1 billion.

In addition, due to the continuous occurrence of various suspicions on the mineral deposit of this case, the owner of the company fell to KRW 7,400 on the date of AI, but the rise again after the media report was distributed in accordance with the distribution of the secondary press data, thereby resulting in a rapid increase in KRW 18,50 on August 9, 201.

(k) However, the Board of Audit and Inspection announced the audit results that the 4.200 million Won of the mineral deposit of this case was unsatisfyed, and the prosecution conducted an investigation of I et al. on the suspicion of stock manipulation, M’s share price has rapidly declined again. Even based on the 0 side’s assertion, only a small amount of 60 million Won (150 million won) which is merely a small amount of 60 million Won (150 million won) for two years after the acquisition of the development right, brought into the Republic of Korea only, and the development of the mineral deposit of this case was not carried out by the Damond, such as Damond mass production project. Ultimately, M was delisting on May 2015, 200 management and M, including I and T,00 management, including financial investment instruments, and J, the Seoul High Court Decision 2013:15 (2014.15.16.25) and finally decided by the first instance court, 2015 (14.2.25).25).34).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 16, 43, 46, 48, 52, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 10, 17 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

A) According to the 1st basic plan for the third development of overseas resources of the Government, the objective of developing overseas resources is set to enhance the self-reliance ability of major energy resources, such as petroleum, gas, and six strategic minerals (gas), and the Plaintiff did not undergo an examination of the relevant pre-covering agency as to whether the basis and content of the store quantity claimed by the company is appropriate after the Plaintiff explained the current status of the promotion of the Damon Development Project from the representative I, which is a private company, after having been informed of the current status of the implementation of the Damond Development Project, and the results of the Plaintiff’s request for public relations and assistance from the Africa’s Republic of Korea (from May 2, 2009 to May 11, 2009). In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s request for public relations and assistance from the 10th KMG to the date of the 10th KMG’s request for the development of e-mail, including the acquisition of the right to develop the e-mail from 10thm.

B) In light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of arguments to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 to the above facts, the above facts and the following facts are acknowledged. Although the plaintiff had a relatively wide discretion to support overseas resources development projects as a high-ranking foreign service officer, and there was no personal benefit in relation to the development project of the mineral deposit of this case, the plaintiff shall select the non-standing side of this case as an object of energy cooperation and diplomatic support without any specific confirmation measures regarding the quantity of the mineral deposit of this case, economic feasibility of the development project of the mineral deposit of this case, the business operator's credibility, etc., and prepare and distribute inaccurate news report materials to 0 side, and promote the project and obtain enormous benefit from the stock market, it is reasonable to view that a series of acts detrimental to the national trust and diplomatic transfer to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it is legitimate to consider the disposition of this case as a ground for disciplinary action. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

(1) where a senior official who establishes and implements policies promotes a national project:

Inasmuch as high-level specialized judgments are required for various policy factors, such as government policies and economic impacts in the field of industry at the time, considerable wide discretion is recognized, and the result of the implementation of the projects does not reach the expectation, and it is difficult to take the grounds for the disciplinary action alone. However, if the implementation of the projects leads to the support for a specific company listed in the stock market, and the State promotes the business of the company, preferential time costs may be incurred. Furthermore, given that the support for the listed company whose business operation is inappropriate may seriously undermine confusion in the stock market, the trust in the government and the national policy, the public official who determines the support activity should pay attention to maintaining government policies and administration and promoting public interest by determining whether and how to provide the trust in the relevant company’s financial position and business operation after undergoing objective verification. This is reasonable to deem that the public official who determines the support activity should pay attention to maintaining public trust in the relevant company’s policies and administration, which is the most fundamental and important duty imposed on the public official above.

In this case, the plaintiff was in diplomatic relations with national overseas resources development policies and energy resources;

The support for the development project of Damond mineral deposits in K can be based on a policy decision as a high-ranking foreign service officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. However, as to the acquisition of the right to develop the mineral deposits of this case at the level of a small listed company, the Korean government has not been able to concentrate national interest on the acquisition of the right to develop the mineral deposits of this case, and as a result, the implementation and performance of the project is not only affected by the public trust in the promotion of the government and overseas resources development policies, diplomatic relations with K, and national confidence, but also directly related to the transaction of the stock market and the interests of the general investors, and thus, it has a significant impact on the public interest. Accordingly, the plaintiff should have determined whether to provide support and the method of support in a prudent case where it is judged that the project is reliable after undergoing objective verification of its financial standing and reliability, including I.

(2) However, the mineral deposit of this case, upon the request of the Plaintiff from I to provide support and cooperation at the government level, is related to multimonds not included in the strategic mineral specified in the basic plan for overseas resources development, and the Plaintiff was aware of the risk of the exploration and development industry of Damond and the fact that the store volume of the mineral deposit of this case claimed by 0 side is merely the estimated volume.

In addition, the basis for the fact that approximately 4.2 billion Won of the estimated store quantity claimed by the side is about 0 billion won.

In other words, while the results of the investigation and the Scupine exploration team conducted on the basis of the aforementioned UN development plan, it is difficult to view that the results of the investigation and the results of the UN development plan only verify the existence of a multimond and geological features and do not verify the quantity of a multimond store, and thus, they do not constitute an independent basis to support the estimated store quantity. Meanwhile, although the V professors affiliated with the Scup performed some exploration activities, they do not have any exploration activities by organizing the exploration team in Scup, and there was no difference between the results of the exploration of the Scupine and the results of the exploration of the Scupine, which are the core elements for calculating the estimated store quantity, and there was no other data to consider that the results of the investigation were reasonable and scientific grounds on the computation of the estimated store quantity. Moreover, the final exploration submitted by the Scupine only were more than 30% of the average 30.4mponization of the products of this case, but also more than 90% of the average 30.4mponies of the production volume of the instant products.

Nevertheless, the validity of the estimated sales volume presented by the Plaintiff or the mine of this case

Along with the basic efforts to objectively verify or verify the economic feasibility, appropriateness, etc. of the commercial development project, the zero side performed various diplomatic support and publicity activities so that the right to develop the mineral deposit of this case can be acquired.

(3) In addition, M acquired by I for J and L's bypassing listing in 2009 shall be capital impaired.

Since the rate is high, the loss was accumulated for several years, and J and L are merely small companies, the plaintiff could have a sufficient doubt as to whether the plaintiff has the intent and ability to smoothly carry out the development project of the multimond mineral deposit, which requires a large amount of funds. Nevertheless, the plaintiff seems to have not gone through an objective verification procedure regarding the financial situation of the 0 side, the operation plan of the project, etc.

(4) Furthermore, as seen earlier, L had objectively appeared from the date of acquisition of the right to develop the instant mineral deposit, that the actual multimond quantity of the instant mineral deposit and the actual multimond quantity of the instant mineral deposit falls far short of the estimated store quantity claimed by 0 side, but the Plaintiff did not verify it properly, and the Plaintiff did not immediately verify it, and prepared the first press report data without including the situation of the uncertainty of the business he knew, and did not objectively verify the result, causing a misunderstanding as recognized by the Korea Stock Exchange based on the media report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Moreover, as a result, when there was suspicion about the instant estimated store quantity and economic feasibility, the Plaintiff prepared the first press report data and prepared the first press report data to the effect that the said presumption quantity, which was not published to the Korea Stock Exchange based on the media report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, made an additional investigation and verification of the misunderstanding of the content of the first press report and made an additional statement and distribution of the report data to the effect that the government, despite the inside of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Trade, and Trade, and Trade.

(5) ① A large number of media prices of 0 U.S. media were 10 times before their distribution. Since 200 U.S. media, it appears that there was a high possibility that the media had been able to do so to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which is the relevant administrative agency, even before their first press materials were distributed. If the Korea Stock Exchange had not been verified, it would be less likely that a large number of U.S. media were 0 times before their first press materials were distributed. ② Although the first press materials were 5 times before their first press materials were distributed, it is difficult to conclude that there was no correlation between the first press materials and the first press materials that were 10 billion U.S. 200,000,000 U.S. 10,000,000 more than 10 U.S. 20,000,000,000 more than 10,0000 won.

(6) The outside of a country that is reliance and that needs to be concentrated on success projects.

As teaching ability was wasted, the preferential treatment costs for certain companies were generated, and media reports that criticize and criticize the above contents were made, the national confidence in overseas resources development projects, energy cooperation diplomacy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade promoting them was seriously damaged, and the relationship with K had a negative impact on the national confidence.

E. Whether the ground for disciplinary action No. 2 of this case exists

1) The specific contents of the second disciplinary cause are as follows: “The Plaintiff prepared and distributed the first news report data in U.S., and recorded and distributed the first news report data to the effect that “The Plaintiff had prepared and distributed the first news report data without objectively verified quantity, and without confirming the facts pertaining to the basis for the calculation thereof, and without confirming the facts, and that “the Plaintiff prepared and distributed the first news report data that can be perceived as the result of the investigation into the UN Development Plan and the investigation into the Skan exploration Team in 2007.” As to the first news report data, a question was raised by a majority of the media about the basis and exploration subject, the Plaintiff should prepare and distribute the second news report data of T.S., while preparing and distributing the second news report data, the Plaintiff should describe the exact facts related to the contents thereof after confirming the K government, the K Embassy Embassy, and the relevant specialized institutions.” However, without such verification process, the K government prepared and distributed the first news report data to the effect that “the Plaintiff had conducted a strict comparison review

In light of the facts found in paragraph (1) above, the circumstances that were based on the grounds for the disciplinary reasons set forth in No. 2 can be recognized as consistent with the actual facts.

2) The news report materials produced by an administrative agency shall be prepared in a way that protects citizens’ right to know. Although it is inappropriate to express their opinions or defend the validity, etc. of their policies in the course of preparing news report materials to promote the state affairs, unlike the objective circumstances known to the administrative agency, even though the positive aspects of the relevant matters have been emphasized or uncertain, it shall not be allowed for citizens to have a wrong perception of the relevant matters by using a decent expression. In particular, in a case where information that may affect the general public, such as securities transaction, is included in news report materials, a citizen is aware that such information is verified by an administrative agency or is based on a reasonable basis, and actually causes a similar outcome to the public disclosure of the relevant information in the stock market. As such, a public official in charge bears the duty of care to ensure that any information that could have been modified or misunderstanding is not contained in the news report materials, regardless of the objective circumstances known to the administrative agency.

3) The Plaintiff is a senior foreign service officer in charge of the development of the instant mineral deposit, which requires high level of integrity and fairness, and is officially confirmed and publicized in the name of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade with respect to M’s business performance. It appears that M’s own news is different from M’s own news, and that its content may have a direct and indirect impact on the stock market. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff neglected its duty of care as stated in the foregoing paragraph (2) and announced the presumption quantity of the instant mineral deposit recorded in the first news report as it is, even though it was aware that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform its duty of care as stated in the foregoing paragraph (2) and caused a huge confusion to investors by causing misunderstanding that the estimated quantity was supported by objective and scientific exploration, and that there was damages to ordinary investors through the announcement of estimated quantity. The Plaintiff’s above act constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part of the grounds for disciplinary action is justified.

F. Whether the ground for disciplinary action No. 3 of this case exists

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in section 30, 14, and 32, 15). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article

(g) Appropriateness of a disciplinary decision.

1) Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action, who is a public official, is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. Therefore, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused discretionary power, as the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has considerably lost validity under the social norms. Pursuant to specific cases, the contents and nature of the disciplinary measure against a public official has to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as characteristics of duties, the facts causing the disciplinary measure, the content and nature of the offense, the administrative purpose intending to achieve through the disciplinary measure, the criteria for a disciplinary measure, etc. Where the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure determines the internal disciplinary measure and accordingly, the disciplinary measure has considerably lost validity under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du47472, Nov. 9, 2017).

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the respective statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8 to the facts acknowledged as seen earlier, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff, such as the plaintiff's failure to unfairly pursue the interests of himself/herself or a third party by using his/her duties, it is difficult to view that the instant disposition was excessively harshly harsh to the plaintiff to the extent that it has considerably lost validity under the social norms, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

A) As seen earlier, the Disciplinary Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case are deemed legitimate grounds for disciplinary action.

The Plaintiff, without taking particular measures to verify the volume of the instant mineral deposit in the multimond store, the economic feasibility of the mineral deposit development project, the credibility of the business entity, etc., shall prepare inaccurate report data, not that the Plaintiff selected the defective side as the subject of energy cooperation diplomatic support and provided diplomatic support to the 0 side.

- The volume of the instant mineral deposit stated in the first news report materials has weak grounds for presumption, and only "4.20 million won" could be distorted in the economic feasibility of the instant mineral deposit. Considering such risk, the Plaintiff did not publish its value in the stock market without publicly announcing its value in the same manner as the first news report materials, which led to a large confusion among investors by misunderstanding the amount of estimated sales volume as supporting the results of objective and scientific exploration. Moreover, the Plaintiff additionally published inaccurate report materials supporting the first news report materials to increase confusion by additionally announcing the second news report materials in support of the first news report materials. In addition, the degree of confusion in the stock market and the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of care cannot be considered to be negligible in light of the degree of the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of care and the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of care.

B) In light of the circumstances described in the above paragraph (a) above, it is reasonable to view that the type of the plaintiff's misconduct is "the type of the plaintiff's misconduct", and the degree and negligence of the misconduct is at least 'the degree of the misconduct is serious, transitional, or the degree of the misconduct is weak and gross negligence is severe.' This misconduct can be viewed as 'grady and suspension from office' according to the disciplinary criteria under Article 2 (1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree. The instant disposition is within the scope prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree.

C) Even if the grounds for disciplinary action of this case are not acknowledged, the Plaintiff mentioned to the extent that he was in charge of the business related to the mineral deposits of this case at a family council at the end of January 2009, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s relative and relative purchased shares of M from March 2009 to January 201, 201, and partly acquired market price profits by selling shares, and as a result, the Plaintiff’s relative and relative obtained unjust profits due to the width of M’s shares, etc., can be acknowledged as having raised suspicion of suspicion that the Plaintiff’s relative and relative obtained unjust profits due to the breadth of M’s shares. Such circumstance may lead to high-ranking foreign service officers who require high level of integrity and fairness, and the lack and misunderstanding of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to which they belong, and thus, may be considered as materials to consider disciplinary action.

D) Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree provides, “Where a person for whom a disciplinary resolution has been requested has rendered any of the following meritorious services, the Disciplinary Committee may reduce disciplinary action in accordance with the criteria for mitigation of disciplinary action specified in attached Table 3.” In light of the language and text of the above provision, the grounds for voluntary mitigation are clear, and as long as it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of good faith or the degree of negligence of duties is inappropriate, it is difficult to view that the Central Disciplinary Committee’s failure to reduce public mitigation is significant, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of good faith or the degree of negligence of duties is serious,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

Judges of the presiding judge, Yang Sung-ju

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Mok-si