(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.7.7. 선고 2015구합71532 판결

B. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) following the resolution of the Board of Audit and Inspection (hereinafter “the instant disciplinary action”).

1. The plaintiff using his position was unfairly involved in the matters of authorization, permission, etc. of himself or third parties by taking advantage of the position of the Board of Audit and Inspection as follows.(a) The plaintiff related to the strengthened military has been forced public officials of the strengthened military to permit the fishing place business he invested.(b) The plaintiff related to the Jung-gu Incheon Jung-gu exercised pressure to allow public officials of Jung-gu Incheon to withdraw the order of removal of illegal buildings to the C fishing place. The plaintiff related to the Mosan-gun has exercised pressure to allow public officials of the Mosan-gun to withdraw the order of removal of subsidies to the C fishing place. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 1. 2. 2014, the plaintiff related to the Korea Rail Network Association without any prior visit 2. 2. 3. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.

3. On December 20, 2012, the plaintiff was inevitably exempted from the fine for negligence in violation of the parking and stopping regulations on the charge of violating the parking and stopping regulations on the charge of official duties, and the plaintiff submitted a false written objection and the false supporting document as if he had done a alcohol in the course of performing official duties. Accordingly, on July 3, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court was issued a decision to punish the fine for negligence on July 3, 2013.

C. On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action and filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee on January 23, 2015, but the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal review on the ground that “the instant disciplinary action is justifiable, as it is reasonable to recognize all disciplinary reasons other than the portion related to non-compliance with working hours during the instant disciplinary action (Article 2(c)).”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

1) As to the first ground for disciplinary action

A) Relevant parts of the strengthening group

The plaintiff shall use a fishing place for public officials of strengthened Gun to decide whether to invest in the fishing place business.

Any intimidation or unlawful solicitation was not made to obtain permission for occupation and use of public waters, to provide advice on whether it is possible to grant permission for occupation and use of public waters, to provide advice on the method of calculating the fees, and to make an oral order to remove illegal buildings, and to obtain a reduction of fees for occupation and use of public waters or permits for fishing place business.

B) Relevant parts of the Incheon Jung-gu

The plaintiff shall review the Building Act, etc. to E who is a public official of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City and then fishing

In comparison with the Siter, there was no statement to the purport that the removal order for the removal of an illegal building against C fishing place should be withdrawn, and this can also be confirmed by the business pocket book stating the telephone contents with the Plaintiff. A written confirmation to the purport that E would withdraw the Plaintiff’s above remarks at the time, but only this is an individual’s trend.

C) Parts related to Monosan-gun

The plaintiff is found to have been improper to audit subsidies from the Monosan Military Sports Association G.

After receiving the Do's information, the head of the division under his jurisdiction visited the Do's office to collect data on the above information, and the head of the division under his jurisdiction visited the Do's office to collect data on the report. At that time, the Do's official sent a legal review on the disposition of return of subsidies to the Do's office for living and sports of the Do's office and did not exercise the pressure

2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2

A) The portion related to the business trip of the Monosan-gun

The Plaintiff, after making a prior report to H of the preceding day, visited the Monosan-gun;

Highly, only H’s statement that the Plaintiff did not memory was found to have left the place of work without permission. Moreover, the Plaintiff recognized the fact that the Plaintiff exchanged with the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s visit to the Monosan-gun Office by the time of the inspection and investigation.

B) Part concerning the business trip of the Korea Rail Network Authority

The Plaintiff, who was an officer or employee of a public institution, was late on the NADD’s book related to salt purchase by the Jeonnam Development Project, and did not work for the Korea Rail Network Authority at the time, reported in advance to its affiliated employees, and then changed the business trip site. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff left the place of work without permission, on the ground that it was in a state of changing the business trip site.

3) As to the ground of appeal No. 3

Since the Plaintiff was unable to park inevitably while conducting an audit, it is justifiable that the Plaintiff filed an objection against the imposition of a fine for negligence on solitarys, and submitted evidential materials. The Plaintiff paid the total amount of the fine for negligence by converting the disposition imposing a fine for negligence into the disposition imposing a fine for negligence. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed exempted from the fine for negligence.

(b) improper decision;

Even if the grounds for disciplinary action are acknowledged to the Plaintiff, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) there was no benefit accrued by the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff was appointed as the most excellent employee of the Board of Audit and Inspection information in 2012 and had been awarded a reward for about 13 years; and (c) the Plaintiff faithfully worked as a public official; and (d) a disciplinary action taken against

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disciplinary action

A. Relevant statutes and regulations

[Attachment 1] The entry of "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations" is as follows.

B. As to the existence of grounds for disciplinary action

1) As to the first ground for disciplinary action

A) Relevant parts of the strengthening group

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On November 14, 2013, M entered into a joint agreement for a fishing place (hereinafter referred to as “L fishing place”) with the content of converting the aquaculture in K and one parcel of public waters (hereinafter referred to as “public waters of this case”) outside the Incheon Si-si, Incheon, which is a fishery right holder, into a fishing place (hereinafter referred to as “L fishing place”).

The plaintiff was proposed by M to participate in the above L fishing place business on April 21, 2014.

'Written Declaration' was prepared to invest KRW 100 million in the cost of installing various facilities in L fishing place businesses, and the existing model was invested in total of KRW 120 million in the cost of civil construction and facilities to change the existing model to fishing place in accordance with this Declaration.

(B) On January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff revealed that he/she is an auditor of the Board of Audit and Inspection by posting a telephone to the N of the reinforced military unit, who is the competent authority for permission for occupation and use of public waters and fishing place business, and sought the identity of the person in charge of permits for fishing place business.

(C) Since then, the Plaintiff introduced N again a person in charge of attempting to obtain a permit for a fishing place business on L Island, and introduced and changed the person in charge, and N on February 6, 2014, which is a person in charge of a permit for use, fishery green belt andO, and fishery green belt and P as a person in charge of a permit for a fishing place business on the 10th of the same month.

(D) The following are to arrange the monetary details with the officials of the strengthened Military Service from January 28, 2014 to February 10, 2014, which the Plaintiff first contacted with the Reinforcement Military Service.

A person shall be appointed.

(E) On April 24, 2014, Q fisheries partnership (representativeJ) applied for a permit to occupy and use public waters in the instant public waters to the head of the strengthened Gun to occupy and use the public waters, and obtained a permit to occupy and use public waters for the purpose of occupation and use from the head of the strengthened Gun on the following day, and from April 25, 2014 to July 31, 2014, the period of the permission was granted. The said permission added a condition of permission that it is impossible to install public structures, such as concrete packaging, in addition to portable containers.

(F) On May 8, 2014, P, a R officer, conducted a field investigation on the public waters of this case, confirmed the fact that a fixed building based on concrete was installed in violation of the conditions of permission for occupation and use of public waters, and the boundary part was illegally reclaimed.

P For this reason, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has removed illegal buildings from J and M at the same place and has removed them;

Sector tried to restore it to its original state.

(G) On May 28, 2014, Te, a S in charge of S, conducted on-site inspections to verify whether the illegal building was removed and the illegal reclamation was restored to its original state, thereby confirming that the illegal reclamation was not restored to its original state, and again talking about M and J to restore its original state.

(h) On June 12, 2014, around 17:30 on June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff visited the KN's fisheries green belt and office offices to restore the area of the fishery green belt, T, U, P, etc., which was previously reclaimed to its original state. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s positive review was that the amount of KRW 100 million should be jointly invested and the fishery income should be divided into part of the fishing place revenues. The Plaintiff said that the Plaintiff is not obliged to grant permission.

(i) On June 14, 2014, around 10:00, the Plaintiff visited the fishery green belt and office again and interpreted the law to the head of the fishery green belt division, T and U. The order of restoration to the original state to the head of the fishery green belt division, T and U. The order of restoration to the original state was erroneously interpreted. The Plaintiff stated to the effect that the order of restoration to the original state to the head of the fishery green belt division, T and U.

(j) If the Plaintiff arranged the contents of the call with the public officials of the reinforcement military service from May 14, 2014 to June 28, 2014, the following (the part of the Plaintiff’s remarks in the above table and the currency content column as listed below are stated by the public officials of the reinforcement military service at the time of the inspection and investigation, and the accurate date and time of these calls are stated in attached Form 2).

A person shall be appointed.

(k) On July 28, 2014, P, T, and U verified that only part of the illegal reclaimed part was restored to its original state as a result of a further on-site inspection on the public waters of this case, and ordered that the remaining portion of the illegal reclaimed part be restored to its original state.

(l) On July 31, 2014, the period of permission for occupation and use of the public waters of the instant case expired, and the head of the strengthened Gun, on August 4, 2014, granted permission for occupation and use of public waters to Qin Fisheries Corporation (representative J) on August 4, 2014, and on August 20, 2014, granted permission for fishing place business for L fishing places.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 4 and 5 (including each number), part of Eul evidence 1, entry of Eul evidence 2 to 12, witness P's testimony and oral argument

The purpose of body

(2) Determination

(A) Permission to occupy and use the public waters of L fishing places as shown in the above recognition and permits to operate a fishing place business;

In light of the Plaintiff’s interest in A, the frequency of telephone communications made by the Plaintiff to the public officials of the strengthening competent authority, the details of their remarks made, the frequency of direct visits made by the strengthened Gun Office, and the details of their remarks made at the time, in particular, to the public officials of the strengthened Gun, etc., the Plaintiff offered a request to the public officials in charge of the occupation and use permit of the L fishing place who used their positions to reduce the charges for occupation and use of public waters to the public officials in charge of the occupation and use permit of the L fishing place they invested by themselves for their own interest or for the benefit of others, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff forced the public officials in charge of the permits for the fishing place business to grant the permits for the fishing place business in a state where the illegal reclaimed portion of the public waters of this case has not been restored to their original state, and it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 10(1) (Prohibition of Opening, etc. of Rights), Article 10-2 (Prohibition of Private Use of Positions), Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith, etc.)

(B) In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the statement of a public official of the strengthened military forces consistent with such recognition is false and that the "detailed number of receipt" (No. 47-3) is a false evidence to collect communication confirmation data that the inspector forcibly pressures the strengthened military communications center without going through the requirements and procedures set forth in the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, and that the statement of a public official of the strengthened military forces obtained by the plaintiff cannot be used as evidence.

However, according to the contents of evidence No. 48 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Board of Audit and Inspection

According to Article 20(4) of the Public Audit Act, the deceased requested the us to submit a record of the internal currency of the office of reinforced military office related to the plaintiff to the us, and the us accepted it by the us and recognized the fact that the us submitted the above 'detailed receipt number', which is the plaintiff's mobile phone number, so the above 'detailed receipt number' cannot be said to be the evidence collected by unlawful means.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

Next, the Plaintiff’s work pocket book stating the currency content with the Plaintiff (No. 6)

The author argues that P himself/herself is different from the facts on June 25, 2014 recorded in the above business book, and that P does not coincide with the currency details of May 14, 2014, June 11, 2014, and June 13, 201, and that P’s statement prepared is also false, because it does not coincide with the currency details of the strengthening military forces permitted to engage in fishing place business (hereinafter referred to as “attached currency details”).

However, each entry of Nos. 1 and 6, P's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument

In light of the following circumstances known by the Plaintiff, i.e., (i) continued to commit intimidation and solicitation calls to obtain permission for a fishing place business for the L fishing place in which the Plaintiff invested, and (ii) the attached call details submitted by the Defendant only contain the currency records which were attributable to the Plaintiff’s cell phone or office telephone at the Plaintiff’s cell phone or office telephone at the Board of Audit and Inspection, and (iii) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not remain in the above currency records by using another person’s cell phone or using another person’s cell phone or leaving a cell phone directly with the P mobile phone at this date, and (iv) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s phone number 1 and 6.1 of the Plaintiff’s first phone number 20,000,000,000 won and 6.1 of the Plaintiff’s phone number 20,000,000 won and 6.14,000,000,000 won and 6.1,000,000.

Finally, the Plaintiff’s enhancement that inspection investigators V rejected solicitation from the Plaintiff

In light of the fact that the inspection and investigation conducted against the plaintiff for the purpose of retaliationing the plaintiff's character, leading the strengthening military officials to make a statement that the plaintiff was threatened with intimidation and reconvened by the plaintiff, the fact that it is difficult to deem that there existed any portion of illegal reclamation at the time of permits for fishing place business, and the fact that the duties of authorization and permission for public waters are under the jurisdiction of the maritime affairs and fisheries team, not under the jurisdiction of the fishery resources team to which the P belongs, and that there is only a person without authority to issue an order for demolition of the P's illegal structure, and the plaintiff is illegal because it was made orally, and the plaintiff did not make any intimidation or unjust solicitation, and thus, it is difficult to believe that the public officials of the strengthening military administration made a statement by the public officials of the strengthened military authority.

However, the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 11, 26, the witness P's testimony and the whole pleading

The following circumstances revealed by the land, i.e., ① there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff refused the Plaintiff’s request and the Plaintiff started an inspection and investigation. Rather, there was a conflict between the Plaintiff and M in connection with the operation of the L fishing place and the Plaintiff’s unreasonable intervention in the Plaintiff’s permission for the operation of the fishing place in the investigation process of the instant case, and the Defendant started an inspection and investigation into the Plaintiff to verify the facts. ② The contents of the statements by the reinforcement military officials are mutually consistent and specific, and are not inconsistent with the statements by other people, and it is difficult to find special motive or circumstance that the statements by the reinforcement military officials are unfavorable to the Plaintiff. ③ The public officials of the reinforcement military visited the public waters of this case several times, and confirmed the illegal reclamation part of the public waters of this case before obtaining the permission for the occupation and use of the public waters at the time of inspection and investigation, and the Plaintiff’s illegal reclamation cannot be seen to have been unlawful in view of the fact that there was no oral removal order from the Korea Post.

B) Relevant parts of the Incheon Jung-gu

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On February 2014, the Plaintiff’s introduction of M, operated a C fishing place located in W in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City around February 2014

The X was only in the vicinity of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.

X was constructed from the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City to the C fishing place site (public waters).

The order for the removal of illegal buildings (Se Sea Haak) was issued verbally, and the plaintiff was asked to correct the order.

(B) On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff stated to the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Y that she was the auditor of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and that she was aware that she was the auditor of the Board of Audit and Inspection and why she was engaged in an administrative act against the convenience of residents, and Y had E, a person in charge of the order of removal, contact the Plaintiff.

E made a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff on the same day, and the details of the Plaintiff’s speech at the time.

In the intelligence, "not to file a civil petition. It will be audit upon entering the audit request, and the relationship between the convenience of residents and the F Leisure, where to what extent the building is constructed and confirmed, and the same type of business should be balanced." In addition, E considers that the plaintiff exercises unfair pressure and then approves the preceding day.

Pro-friendly fishing place orders to restore illegal buildings to their original state, and pre-announcements for cancellation of permission for occupancy use were sent to X on the same day by its staff.

(C) Meanwhile, E, on November 26, 2014, submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation of November 26, 2014, that he understood the Plaintiff’s above remarks in the business pocket book to the meaning of “a withdrawal of an order to remove an illegal building (dual) for “C fishing place”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 13 and 14 and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

The following can be known in accordance with the purport of the entire facts and arguments acknowledged earlier.

The circumstances are as follows: ① the Plaintiff, upon request of the head of the Audit and Inspection Team of Incheon Jung-gu in receipt of a request from X to resolve illegal building demolition orders issued by him/her with respect to the fishing place operated by him/her; ② the Plaintiff is aware that he/she is the auditor of the Board of Audit and Inspection of Incheon Jung-gu in receipt of a request from the head of the Audit and Inspection Team to explain that he/she is the public official in charge of the audit and inspection; ② the Plaintiff is aware that he/she will not enter the civil complaint against the order to remove illegal building in exchange for E; ③ at that time, he/she thought that the Plaintiff would exercise an unreasonable pressure to withdraw the order to remove illegal building against the C fishing place; ③ the Plaintiff’s statement was entered in the business pocket book; ④ The Plaintiff’s statement was immediately directed X to the public official in charge of the inspection of public official’s duties; ④ The Plaintiff constitutes a violation of Article 101 of the State Public Officials Act’ Act’s duty to remove his/her position (the Plaintiff’s duty to withdraw it is reasonable and reasonable for the public official in accordance with Article 16).

C) Parts related to Monosan-gun

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was conducting the “collection and audit of data related to the business performance capacity and contract” (the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and the Audit Period: November 10, 2014, or November 13, 2014), and was introducing Z on November 10, 2014 at the office of the Mansan Military Sports Association.

G A Subsidies to the Plaintiff at its place to the Motsan-gun Sports Association of the United States Armed Forces.

In fact, on June 27, 2014 and August 18, 2014, the Dotsan-gun issued a request to the effect that the return disposition would be well resolved, and there was a fact that the Dotsan-gun took measures to return the illegally executed private ordinary subsidy to the Dotsan-gun Sports Association (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition to return the subsidy of this case").

The plaintiff, through AA, who is a member of the Dong Fee on the same day, shall audit him/her on the following day.

It delivered that the plan is a plan.

(B) On November 11, 2014, the following day, the Plaintiff visited Masan-gun Office on the 2010am and confirmed that she himself/herself is an auditor at the Board of Audit and Inspection, and confirmed that he/she is the head of the department in charge of the disposition of returning the subsidy of this case, and that G is a person with stressed in G and son. However, due to this case, he/she is suffering from stress. Whether the head of the local government is not aware of an investigation into a specific person? When he/she investigates his/her individual into the chines, she respondeded that the disposition of returning the subsidy of this case does not have any problem in terms of procedure or content.

The plaintiff continues to be entitled to statutory charges, travel expenses, and retirement by the board of directors of the Madsan Military Sports Council.

If it is decided to pay a gold, etc., it was unfair that the Masan-gun taken measures to recover the subsidy, etc., review the return disposition of the subsidy of this case, and call that the return disposition of the subsidy of this case will be terminated without submitting the document audit, and the Madsan-gun Office was 30 minutes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 15, and purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

The following circumstances revealed in accordance with the facts recognized and the purport of the entire pleading.

In other words, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of a request from the Dotsan-gun Sports Association G to resolve well the instant subsidy return disposition, visited Dotsan-gun alone. At the time thereafter, as seen, the Plaintiff’s visit was between Dotsan-gun and Dotsan-gun without any prior reporting to the head of the division to which Dotsan-gun belongs. ② The Plaintiff made a pressure statement to the purport that Dotsan-gun should review the disposition of the instant subsidy return without any clear basis while Dotsan-gun’s public officials are in a permanent auditor’s friendship with G. ③ In addition to the Plaintiff made the above statement, the Plaintiff’s visit to Dotsan-gun was difficult to be considered as normal audit activities, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff exercised undue pressure to withdraw the disposition of the subsidy return disposition by using his own position to Dot-gun-gun-gun’s public officials (Article 11 and 15-2 of the State Public Officials Act). Article 10(1)5 of the State Public Officials Act prohibiting the use of the instant subsidy (No.16).

2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2

A) The portion related to the business trip of the Monosan-gun

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) The Plaintiff was ordered to make a business trip with AA on November 10, 2014 with regard to “the business trip agency: the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and the Audit Period: November 13, 2014.”

In addition, the plaintiff reports a business trip from the head of the department H to his/her department each day during the business trip.

and 2 persons shall act as one group, and where they visit an institution other than the originally scheduled business trip, they shall be reported in advance and ordered to obtain approval.

(B) On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff left AA in the office while performing the audit duties at the government general office building of Sejong-si, and moved her to Modsan-gun at least four p.m., and visited the Modsan-gun in relation to the issue of the instant subsidy return disposal requested by G following the day.

(C) On November 11, 2014, H became aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to report the business trip of the Plaintiff and AA on the day, and caused AE, a subordinate employee, to contact the Plaintiff and AA. AE calls to A, and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff, on its own, fell into the Mosan-gun, and reported it to H.

Accordingly, H contact the Plaintiff on the same day with the Plaintiff and without reporting in advance.

The reason was asked to the U.S. military, and the plaintiff's prior report to the business trip site and the order to return to the office following the following day, considering that the plaintiff's order to return the business trip to the office was met.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Partial entry of Evidence A No. 17, Entry of Evidence No. 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is superior to the prior report on November 11, 2014.

It is reasonable to deem that a person was deprived of his/her workplace without permission, which constitutes grounds for disciplinary action provided for in Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act, which violates Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and Article 58 (Prohibition of Deserting from Office) of the State Public Officials Act.

On November 10, 2014, the day before the plaintiff alleged that he was not free from the place of work since he reported to contact H's office telephone number of H 10 p.m. 1 p. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o.

C) Parts concerning business trips of the Korea Rail Network Authority

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) The Plaintiff was organized under the same Article as D, a new employee, and was ordered to take a business trip to the Korea Rail Network Authority and the Korea Development Corporation for the Southern Development Corporation, in order to conduct an audit of the corruption inspection (the audit period: from September 3, 2012 to September 7, 2012).

(B) On September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff did not work for D to the Korea Rail Network Authority without any prior contact, and D performed a mixed audit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 17 and 18, and purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

The facts of the recognition as mentioned in subparagraph 1 and the purport of the whole pleading can be known.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff visited Korea Rail Network Authority on September 5, 2012 to conduct an audit by visiting Korea Rail Network Authority under two Korea Korea Rail Network Authority as of September 5, 2012; (ii) the Plaintiff did not report to the head of the division to which the Plaintiff belongs and did not notify D of the change of the business trip site in advance after reporting to the head of the division to which he belongs, and (iii) the Plaintiff’s assertion on the change of the business trip site is difficult to believe; and (iv) the Plaintiff stated to the purport that it was unable to collect information related to the salt purchase of the Jeonnam Development Construction at the time of the inspection and investigation, not to report to the Korea Rail Network Authority on September 1, 2012, without permission, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff went away from the business trip without permission without permission without permission (as stated in subparagraphs A and 20 above, the Plaintiff does not constitute a violation of Article 16(1)5(2) of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 5(2) of the Act.

3) As to the ground of appeal No. 3

A) Facts of recognition

(1) From November 6, 2007 to May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to the imposition of an administrative fine of KRW 1,045,840 by the head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government head of the Gu (hereinafter referred to as “instant imposition of the administrative fine”) by violating the parking and stopping regulations 14 times in front of the Olympics National Living Room in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu.

(2) On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a written objection (written explanation) to the head of the Guro-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office to the effect that the Plaintiff was inevitably in the course of conducting an inspection, such as collecting information as a public official of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and submitted a detailed statement of individual audit, which is an official document, in the e-audit system.

In this regard, at the time of the inspection and investigation, the Plaintiff was making a parking and stopping for the children’s private teaching institutes, etc., but the Plaintiff submitted a false written objection as if he was inevitably making a parking and stopping in order to be exempted from an administrative fine, and received a decision to impose an administrative fine by the court.

(3) On July 3, 2013, based on the above written objection, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision not to impose an administrative fine on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was identified as the driver of the offense of parking and stopping, and notified the head of the competent police station thereof to impose the penalty, and thereafter the Plaintiff paid the penalty in full.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 22, 28, 29, 31 (including branch numbers for additional evidence), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was subject to a decision not to impose a fine for negligence by submitting a false written objection and explanatory materials as if he/she inevitably stopped in the course of performing his/her official duties in order to be exempted from the imposition of a fine for negligence due to a violation of the parking and stopping of the Plaintiff’s personal usage on behalf of the Plaintiff’s educational institute, etc. (after that, the Plaintiff is subject to a fine in lieu of a fine for negligence, or the entries of evidence Nos. 24-1, 2, 25, and 26 are not in violation of Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act, and this constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act.

As to this, the Plaintiff is investigated as close as the adviser at the time of the inspection and investigation.

Although it is alleged that the answer as desired and the answer form (No. 1) was affixed without review, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted as there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the remaining grounds for disciplinary action, excluding the part related to the number of working hours not recognized by the appeals review committee, are all recognized.

C. Regarding the adequacy of a disciplinary decision

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is placed at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it may be deemed unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined by taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc., and it should be determined that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and objectively deemed unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14637, Nov. 25, 1997).

2) In the instant case:

In full view of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the evidence No. 20 as well as the entire pleadings as to the instant case, even if most favorable circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff were to be considered, it is difficult to view the instant disciplinary action as deviating from or abusing the discretion, as it considerably lacks validity under the social norms, even if it is considered to the maximum

① The Plaintiff is an auditor in charge of the inspection, etc. of duties of public officials and requires compliance spirit, fairness, and sincerity much higher than that of other public officials due to the nature of the duties.

② Nevertheless, the Plaintiff continued to exercise unfair pressure, such as meeting and intimidation, against relevant public officials upon the request of the Doz. so that administrative disposition may be withdrawn from the Doz., and during this process, the Plaintiff was absent from the Doz. Moreover, the Plaintiff submitted a false objection and explanatory materials as if she were forced to violate the parking and stopping regulations in order to reduce the fines for negligence without any prior reporting. In addition, the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct is very serious in light of the motive, content, status, etc. of the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct, and the Plaintiff’s quality as an auditor is extremely doubtful. Therefore, it is highly necessary to establish a public office discipline and to recover the public trust of audit officials.

③ Only the grounds for the first disciplinary action fall under the case of violation of Articles 10(1) and 11(1) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the Board of Audit and Inspection and the case of serious misconduct. According to Article 3(3) [Attachment 1] of the Guidelines for Handling Violations, etc. by Public Officials of the Board of Audit and Inspection, in such a case, the pertinent public officials shall be subject to suspension from office or disciplinary action heavier than reprimand but may be aggravated and mitigated depending on the seriousness of the case. Thus, the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s dismissal meets the above guidelines for

④ 원고는 감찰조사 당시부터 비위사실 대부분을 일관하여 부인하고 있는데다가 이 사건 소송 계속 중 원고에 대한 감찰조사를 지휘했던 특별감찰팀장에게 '당신들, 두다리 쭈우욱 펴고 잘들 자고 있겠지, 조금만 기다려, 내 지금까지 왜 인내하며 실체적 진실을 모두 안 밝히고 여기까지 왔는지 가르쳐 줄게, 감사마인드도 철학도 없는 용서할 수 없는 인간들!'이라는 내용의 문자메시지를 보내는 등 자신의 잘못을 반성하고 있지 않은 것으로 보인다.

⑤ Furthermore, around 2006, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of reprimand on the grounds that the Plaintiff was indicted for a summary charge of fraud and a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and thus violated his duty to maintain dignity.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disciplinary action is lawful and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing it is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.