logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
창원지방법원 2016.06.14 2016구합50400
해임처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on June 27, 1992, and served in the Yangsan Police Station’s livelihood safety and B district since July 21, 2014 after promotion to the police officer on March 1, 2013.

B. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “act subject to disciplinary action”):

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On September 29, 2015, around 01:29, the Plaintiff drive approximately 200 meters of the Dunst Motor Vehicle owned by himself/herself (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of 0.129% in front of the instant vehicle located in the instant vehicle in the vicinity of the business establishment in the direction of the captain of the Busan-gun-gun, Busan-gun, under the influence of alcohol level of around 0.129%.

The E-mail parked above the front driver caused a traffic accident equivalent to KRW 15,00, and the plaintiff's act of flight has been reported to the press, etc. The plaintiff's act constitutes a violation of Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 57 (Duty of Fidelity), and Article 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 78 (1) 1 and 3 of the same Act.

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the appeals review committee, but the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition review on December 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 24 and 25, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case constitutes a case where the Plaintiff violated the principle of proportionality and abused discretion, and thus ought to be revoked.

1) In extenuating circumstances, the Plaintiff was driving a vehicle to park, but it was not intended to move the vehicle to any other specific place. In light of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident, the instant disposition is too harsh. 2) The disciplinary action taken by the Plaintiff due to a drunk driving was invalidated due to a special amnesty.

arrow