1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On January 26, 1993, the Plaintiff was appointed as a director general of the headquarters of the above post office on November 4, 1998 and served as an office worker upon the recommendation of designee D on November 4, 1998.

The president of Korea Post determined that the Plaintiff paid KRW 73,70,000,000,000 to D each 94 times a month, out of the business handling fees deposited in the name of the head of B post office, from January 9, 2004 to September 201, as a result of an inspection of B post offices, and that the above act constitutes a case where money and valuables are provided in return for recommendation of the head of a special post office and the national budget is used for personal purposes. On April 24, 2012, the Busan Regional Special Post Office Disciplinary Committee requested the Plaintiff to make a resolution on the imposition of heavy disciplinary and disciplinary charges on the Plaintiff.

C. On December 3, 2012, the said Disciplinary Committee: (a) the Plaintiff’s act violates Articles 17 and 18 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Special Post Office Employees; and (b) committed an act violating this portion or significantly impairing dignity as a public service trustee, which is a disciplinary cause under Article 36(1)3 of the said Regulations; (c) however, (d) the Plaintiff used part of the fees for performing duties as a post office operating expenses; (d) the Plaintiff used the fees for performing duties as a post office operating expenses; (e) faithfully performed duties without disciplinary action after appointment; (e) made efforts for business performance; and

Accordingly, on December 17, 2012, the defendant was subject to two months of suspension from office against the plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the respective dispositions stated in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1, 10 through 13 is not the Plaintiff’s monthly salary but the Plaintiff paid living expenses or rent for the office building of a special post office. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the respective dispositions stated in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 10 through 13.

Fees for the handling of duties prescribed in Article 17 of the Enforcement Rules of the Special Post Offices Act shall be necessary for performing duties.