The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken when a disciplinary measure is taken 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. Thus, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when it is acknowledged that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure because the disciplinary measure as the exercise of discretionary authority has considerably lost validity

In order for a disciplinary action against a public official to have remarkably lost validity under the social norms, the content and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, the administrative purpose intended to be achieved by the disciplinary action, the criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, and other various factors should be considered as clearly unreasonable objectively and objectively, depending on the specific cases.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du6620 Decided September 24, 2002; 2010Du16172 Decided November 11, 201, etc.). In addition, in a case where a person having authority over disciplinary measures takes a disciplinary measure in accordance with the pre-determined criteria, barring special circumstances, such as the standard itself goes against the principle of proportionality or fails to meet the reasonableness, it cannot be readily concluded that the relevant disciplinary measure has considerably lost the validity of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du17875 Decided November 24, 2011, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du19882 Decided January 29, 201, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the reasoning of the lower judgment, as well as the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.

(1) On January 31, 2005, the Plaintiff was specially appointed as a class 10 local driver for the Daegu Metropolitan City’s function. In order to be appointed as a local driver, the Plaintiff satisfies the qualification requirements such as ① a class 1 large driver’s license holder, ② a person with a driving experience of at least 6 months for large buses.

(2) The plaintiff is appointed as a regular public official on July 31, 2005 and served on September 1, 2006.