In a case where the chief of the police station took a reprimand against the veterinary nurse Gap under his control on the ground that he violated Article 56 and Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act by failing to comply with the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 57, on the ground that he did not comply with the duty of care under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 57, even though he received an instruction from the original team to the effect that he unfairly rejected the order.

In a case where the chief of the police station instructed the veterinary nurse Gap to the effect that "the head of the police station received an assignment from the nuclear team in relation to the assignment of the patient and unfairly rejected it," but the head of the police station took a reprimand on the ground that he violated Articles 56 and 57 of the State Public Officials Act because the hospitalization was determined and the patient's guardian who was assigned with the sick and sick room would induce the transfer of the sick room to another sick and sick ward, etc., the case held that Gap's act of violating the duty of explanation against the patient's guardian, such as "I will see that I will be able to pay for the long distance infected patient now?" is deemed to have fulfilled the duty of explanation to the patient as a medical worker, and it is difficult to view that it indirectly refused the assignment of the patient in violation of the direction of the nursing support officer, etc., and it is difficult to view that Gap's act constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith under Article 56 or 57 of the State Public Officials Act.

Articles 56 and 57 of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Head of Police Hospital;

Seoul Police Agency Decision 2012Guhap20250 decided July 25, 2013

June 24, 2014

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on December 16, 201 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Existence of reasons for the disposition;

1) As to the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1

A) Basic facts

(1) Under the relevant provisions of the police hospital, the staff of the nuclear team is required to determine the number of wards to be hospitalized by the patient upon the doctor’s diagnosis. However, in the case where the patient is placed in the sick ward that does not relate to the patient’s main type of disease or where the patient is placed only to a specific ward, etc., the number of nurses raise an objection to the allocation of the sick room. Accordingly, the patient’s opinion on the allocation of the sick room by calls to the relevant sick nurse, and then decides the sick room to be hospitalized by the patient.

(2) According to the Medical Service Regulations of the Police Hospital and the Guidelines for Nursing Services of the Nursing Service Offices under the Defendant, a nurse notified by the Police Team of the patient to be hospitalized by the patient is prepared for the patient so that the patient can be hospitalized, and the patient first notifies the doctor of the hospitalization and provides the patient with guidance for hospitalization. In the case of a child at the time of the nursing information investigation, a detailed investigation is conducted as to whether to conduct vaccinations that do not investigate into adults, and a visit is prohibited as to the patient suffering from infection.

(3) According to the internal regulations of the police hospital, such as the police hospital’s regulations, the Plaintiff was under the direction of the head of the nursing team, who is directly under the command of the head of the nursing team and the officer in charge of nursing support, who is directly under the direct control of the head of the nursing team and the officer in charge of nursing support. In relation to the allocation of the staff room of the police hospital in the police hospital, the head of the board team and the officers in charge of nursing support complain of the difficulty in allocating the staff of the board team to the nursing team leader and the officers in charge of nursing support. The nursing support and the head of the nursing team directed the number of nurses, including the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, to the effect that they unfairly refuse the assignment of the patient. On Oct. 1, 2011, the nursing support officer and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 of the nursing1 team were given instructions to the same effect as the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff. However, if the patient was placed in the main type of sick team of the patient, the head of the group was subject to the instant disposition against the Plaintiff.

(4) Nonparty 4, who was the horse of Nonparty 10 after the birth of Nonparty 3, was a relative’s wound, and was placed in the funeral hall of the police hospital, and was given medical treatment to the doctor by showing that he was satisfy and satisfying a mustache. On October 17, 2011, according to the direction of hospitalization, Nonparty 3 was hospitalized with Nonparty 3, and the staff of the nuclear team wanted to have a single room. The staff of the nuclear team assigned Nonparty 3, who was within the hospital, to Nonparty 72 sick person, 1, 72 sick person, and 719, 719, 719, 713 sick person, 716, 70, 710, 710, 72, 72, and 72, 719, 719, 719, and 70,000 sick person.

(5) From the Plaintiff, Nonparty 4, who was a nurse of the 72 sick group, asked the Plaintiff to hear the phrase “I am feasible disease patients at present, how I am feasible disease patients will be punished?” and requested the Plaintiff to change the hospital room into one room of the ambia-dong. However, from the Plaintiff, Nonparty 4 changed the hospital room from the Plaintiff to two rooms of the ambia-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

(6) The range of visibility is a disease emitted by the horse (non-end), and the horse is not floating in the air, and it is possible to move not more than 90cm normally, so the distance is spreading in a close contact. Therefore, in principle, the distance patient is hospitalized in a single-person room, and if it is not possible to have a single-person room, it is medically allowed to isolate the patient infected with the same micro-organism (if the patient is not infected with any other micro-organism with the possibility of being infected, and the possibility of being infected with the same micro-organism is low, the method of being hospitalized in the same room). Even if it is not possible to isolate one person room or co-defense, it is also allowed to maintain at least 90cm away from other patients or visitors, and the police hospital has isolated the distance from the above method since this case.

(7) According to the hospital infection prevention management guidelines published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare around April 2005, there is a statistical report on the occurrence of hospital infection and about 100,000 patients per year from around 5 to 10% of the hospitalized patients, and in the case of Korea, there is a little difference in each research, or from around 3.7 to 15.5% of the hospitalized patients, it is deemed that hospital infection occurs. The prevention of 100% of hospital infection is impossible from the level of modern medicine, and is ordinarily prevented from 30 to 35%.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class B 1, 3 through 7, 14, 16, 27 through 31, 33, 38, 41, 43 through 46, Gap's 6, 22, 25 through 29, witness non-party 5's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Whether the duty of good faith is violated

The duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act is the most fundamental duty imposed on public officials, and the duty of care shall be faithfully performed in order to promote the public interest as much as possible and prevent disadvantages to the public (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3161, May 23, 1989). Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 11252, Feb. 1, 2012) provides that nurses have the duty of improving public health and contributing to securing a healthy life by performing nursing or medical treatment assistance and health activities for sick and wounded persons. Article 4 of the same Act provides that medical personnel and the head of a medical institution shall endeavor to provide best medical services to patients by improving the quality of medical care and preventing hospital infection and developing medical technology.

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument among the above facts, whether to assign a patient whose hospitalization has been determined according to a doctor's diagnosis to a hospital room is the nature of the decision-making based on the doctor's diagnosis, including the patient's convenience, the type and characteristics of the patient's disease, the nurse's service burden, the convenience of medical treatment, and matters related to the hospital management. Barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, a 72 unit nurse, has the duty to take measures in good faith to ensure that the patient can be hospitalized promptly and rapidly in accordance with the decision-making on allocating the hospital unit and the hospital room. If there is an inappropriate point in the decision-making on allocating the hospital unit and the hospital room, such circumstance should be first notified to the original unit, and if the opinion is not accepted, the issue should be resolved according to the command system, and if it is necessary to make a decision on whether to allocate the hospital unit and the hospital room, the doctor's medical decision should be followed by the doctor's medical decision, such as the doctor's duty, if necessary.

However, the aforementioned facts and the premise of oral argument reveal the following circumstances: ① in order for a police hospital to provide the best medical service stipulated under Article 4 of the Medical Service Act, it is necessary to provide the hospitalized patient with appropriate information about the patient’s disease and danger, so that the patient can choose a hospital suitable for his/her own situation; and accordingly, it can be said that the police hospital’s public interest pursued as a medical institution is achieved; ② in particular, high-speed, and high-speed, and 10 months after the infant’s parents wish to be hospitalized as one person, if there is no one person room in the infant ward, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s act of providing the patient’s reliance on the patient’s disease conditions before the hospital was assigned, method and risk assessment, etc. as well as the Plaintiff’s act of providing the patient’s reliance on the patient’s right to self-determination before the hospital was assigned. ③ It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s act of providing the patient’s reliance team and 17 days before the hospital hospital’s entrance’s entrance’s treatment as well.

C) Whether the obligation to obey is violated

Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act provides that a public official shall obey an official order of his/her superior in the course of performing his/her duties. In order to determine whether a certain act of a public official violates an official order of his/her superior, the determination shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the kinds of the public official's duties, the motive and situation of the order, the public interest pursued by the order in question, the nature of the relevant duties, the discretion of the public official in charge

According to Articles 29 and 33 of the Regulations on the Practice of the Police Hospital, matters concerning the duties regulations of nurses are responsible for the nursing support officer, and the head of the nursing team shall handle the nurse service status and all matters by the order of the nursing support officer, and each of the sick nurse shall manage sickly by the order of the nursing support officer and promote the arrangement of inpatients and the convenience of treatment of inpatientss.According to the guidelines for the nursing service of the police hospital, the nurse shall evaluate the number of patients who performed the duties by receiving the division of duties from the nursing support officer and the nursing team leader to maintain high-quality patient care, reflect the evaluation of the number of patients who performed the duties in accordance with the individual nurse's ability, reflect it in the nursing plan, and hold meetings with the patient or his family members who made a tour of the sick patient at any time, and act as much as possible to solve the problem.

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s superior nursing support officer and the nursing team leader instructed several nurses including the Plaintiff prior to the occurrence of the act subject to disciplinary action against the first disciplinary measure, that “the Plaintiff was assigned by the prime team in relation to the patient assignment and unfairly refused it.”

However, the aforementioned legal reasoning can be seen as follows: ① in the police hospital, it is difficult to interpret the above legal reasoning as follows: ① in the case where the patient is placed in the hospital with no main type of disease, or the patient is placed only in the ward with a specific ward, etc., the head of the nursing support team and the nursing team appears to have been well aware of such circumstances; ② in the case of difficulties in allocating the hospital room, the nursing support team leader and the nursing team leader issued instructions to the number of nurses including the plaintiff to the effect that the patient can not be deemed unfairly refused the assignment of the hospital; ③ in the case where the patient is placed in the hospital with no relation to the patient's main type of disease after the issuance of the above order; ② in the case of the patient's accommodation, it is difficult to see the patient's health care team's instructions to the extent that the patient's health care team's instructions were not well known to the patient's health care team's employees, and the patient's health care team's guidelines and the patient's health care team's instructions were not given.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's act subject to disciplinary action violates the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act or the duty of obey Article 57.

2) As to the grounds of disciplinary action 2 to 5

The court's explanation on this part is identical to each corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified without any further review, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)