1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a correctional public official who was appointed as a teaching staff on August 13, 1992 and served in the B prison welfare department of the Seoul Regional Correctional Agency from October 30, 2017, when promoted to the teaching staff on August 13, 2007.

On December 3, 2014, in violation of the signal at the intersection on the right-hand turn, the Plaintiff shocked the front-hander of the vehicle driven on the opposite side by the negligence of violating the signal at the intersection, and suffered from the other driver necessary injury for about two weeks.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). The Plaintiff was punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in relation to the said traffic accident.

On January 13, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff caused the instant traffic accident, thereby violating the duty of good faith provided for in Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and the duty to maintain dignity provided for in Article 63 of the same Act, the head of the original correctional institution issued a warning to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “The instant warning”). On January 14, 2015, the Minister of Justice enacted the Rules on the Personnel Management of Correctional Officials (Enforcement Rule No. 975, Jan. 19, 2015), and prepared “the standards for the examination for promotion of disciplinary persons, etc.” (the Ministry of Justice’s Directive No. 975 and January 19, 2015).

According to the above criteria, a person who has been subject to minor disciplinary action (including a warning of misexplosion) shall be restricted to promotion once.

On May 31, 2019, the date of the examination for continuous service promotion of Class VI in 2019, the Plaintiff was included in the subject of the examination for promotion, meeting the 11 year period, which is the continuous service promotion period for the assistant principal.

The Defendant, on June 10, 2019, excluded the Plaintiff from the eligibility for continuous service promotion on the ground that the appointment for continuous service promotion for a person subject to class VI continuous service promotion was made, and that there was a power that the Plaintiff was subject to the instant non-explosion warning disposition, and that the promotion was limited once.

(2) On July 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Ministry of Personnel Management (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on September 4, 2019.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 1, 1.