1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on November 27, 2015 is revoked.

3...

Details of the disposition

This part of this Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of this Court's reasoning is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

A. As to the legitimacy of the instant dismissal disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion, “(b)-related Acts and subordinate statutes,” and “decision on the grounds of disciplinary action.” This court’s reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, accepts it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official who is a judgment on the assertion of deviation or abuse of discretionary power, it is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority deems that the disciplinary measure has seriously lost validity under the social norms, it may be unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the contents and nature of the relevant disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, the criteria for a disciplinary measure, etc. should be considered to be clearly and objectively unfair. Even if the exercise of authority to take the disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, it is against the public interest principle that should exercise the authority for public interest, or if the exercise of authority to take the disciplinary measure is contrary to the principle of proportionality that should exercise the authority for public interest, or if it is generally considered as a disciplinary reason, it violates the principle of proportionality or the standards that generally applied the same degree of flight without reasonable grounds, thereby losing equality of disciplinary action.