logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.09.22 2015누40851
감봉처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, other than adding relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, are the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is stated in Paragraph (2) of Article 2 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited. 2. Article 8 (2) of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph (2) of the same Article, which

2) Meanwhile, according to the Military Personnel Management Act, the Enforcement Rule of the Military Personnel Disciplinary Order, the Military Headquarters Disciplinary Rule, and the Military Manpower Headquarters Disciplinary Rule delegated by the Military Personnel Management Act, and the Military Manpower Headquarters Disciplinary Rule, they did not seriously impede the performance of duties as a result of nonperformance of instructions (violation of orders, political intervention, collective action). If the degree of misconduct is weak and transitional, the criteria for the determination of disciplinary action regulations on the Military Personnel Order and the Army Headquarters Disciplinary Rule are generally effective only within an administrative organization, and they do not have external binding power. Thus, if an administrative disposition is not carried out after the enforcement of a pool, it is not immediately unlawful, and thus, the administrative disposition should be respected as far as possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du28783, Nov. 14, 2013).

With respect to this case, the Plaintiff, as a subordinate, has the second drinking place at the recommendation of D Captain, who is a medical superior.

arrow