beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Details to be corrected or added;
A. On the 7th 18-19th 7th 19th 7th 19th 7th 19th 19th 7th 19th 7th 19th 7th 19th 19th 7th 19th 19th 7th 19th 200, “The instant disposition cannot be deemed illegal as being abused or abused from discretionary power.” In light of the above, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s submission of evidence Nos. 1 to 12th 12
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion when considering the nature of the instant award or the Plaintiff’s military service process, even if the Plaintiff’s participation in the form of award was a kind of work to receive the National Defense Chairperson’s award, and thus, there is no ground for disposition such as “salarying from work place,” and that the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion.
However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including the paper numbers), the plaintiff may only recognize the fact that he left the place of work without permission by attending the award ceremony (place: the place: D located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City) held by the incorporated association G without attending the "OPT Meeting" (place: the Gyeonggi-do Epicing City) under the initial business trip order on December 26, 2016. Thus, the above argument No. 1 cannot be accepted.
In addition, in light of the above circumstances, although the plaintiff has faithfully performed military service for a long time, it is possible to consider the circumstances in which the plaintiff participated in the award ceremony.