beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of disciplinary surcharge against the Plaintiff on December 29, 2015 shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 23, 1980, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Local Agriculture and Forestry Working Group, and served as the head of the C Eup located in B in Cheongju-si from September 14, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “C Eup”) and as the E-section located in Cheongju-si from July 25, 2014 to July 12, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “E-section”).
B. On December 29, 2015, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a disposition of dismissal and disciplinary surcharge of KRW 200,700,000 (i.e., three times the amount of money and other valuables received 66,900,000 x 3) (hereinafter “instant disposition of disciplinary surcharge”) on the grounds that the following grounds arise (hereinafter “instant disposition of dismissal”) following a resolution by the Chungcheongbuk-do Personnel Committee (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of disciplinary surcharge”).
(2) On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff received money and valuables of KRW 66,90,000 from eight enterprises, such as F construction, which entered into a negotiated contract with two Eups and Myeons at the time of his/her employment as the head of C Eup/Myeon, in total at KRW 67 times in 67,90,00, under the name of “concepting a free contract and entering into a smooth future negotiated contract,” and on May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff recommended a landscaping construction company (I), the contractor of G development project at the time of his/her employment as the subcontractor of the Myeon office as the subcontractor of the relevant project. After being aware of the fact that H construction was directly executed on May 8, 2015 and submitted a construction plan different from the fact that H construction was not implemented, such act did not constitute a violation of Article 48 (Duty of Good Faith) and Article 53 (Duty of Integrity) of the Local Public Officials Act, the purport of the entire pleading and the purport of the pleading as follows.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.
1. The amount of money and valuables received KRW 66.9 million among the grounds for the disciplinary action in this case.