1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On April 3, 2006, the Plaintiff entered the Central Veterans Hospital under the jurisdiction of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”) and serves as the current medical examination department B.

On October 31, 2014, the Defendant Hospital issued a reprimand on November 11, 2013, while attending the Plaintiff by opening a general personnel committee, and caused the Plaintiff to disturb the order of service by leaving the Plaintiff without permission and leaving his place of work, etc. for seven days each year of 2014. Since the Defendant Hospital violated Article 53 subparag. 4 through 6 of the Personnel Regulations and Article 6 of the Service Regulations, the Defendant Hospital’s disciplinary action for three months of suspension from office (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), and notified the Plaintiff thereof on November 3, 2014.

The contents related to this case, among the defendant's internal regulations to which the defendant hospital belongs, are as follows:

Where an employee falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall be subject to disciplinary action after deliberation by the Personnel Committee:

☞ 복무질서를 문란시키는 행위를 한 경우, 연간 7일 이상의 무단결근을 한 경우, 직무상의 의무를 위반하거나 직무상의 정당한 명령에 복종하지 아니한 경우(인사규정 제53조 제4, 5, 6호) 징계의 종류는 파면, 해임, 정직, 감봉, 견책이 있다

(Article 54 of the Personnel Management Regulations). Suspension from office shall be between one month and three months, and the status of an employee during that period shall be held during that period, but his/her duties shall not be performed, as prescribed by the Remuneration Regulations and the Annual Salary Salary Remuneration Regulations (Article 55(1)3 of the Personnel Management Regulations). Criteria for disciplinary action against a discipline accused person are as specified in the attached Table.

(Article 58-3(1) of the Personnel Regulations (based on recognition) / [Article 58-3(1) of the said Regulations] The defendant's assertion of the parties concerned as to the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) Gap evidence 1; (c) Eul evidence 1, 15, 17; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (d) the plaintiff's assertion of the parties concerned as to the overall purport of oral warning for absence from work for seven days; (c) the plaintiff was absent from work on October 22, 2014