1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 13, 1996, the Plaintiff was appointed as the 10th rank post office of the Daegu Postal Items and B, which had served as the 10th grade post office of the Gyeong-gu Postal Administration.

B. On August 15, 2015, at around 22:00, the Plaintiff driven a car volume as C, while under the influence of alcohol 0.144% of blood alcohol level, at the same time on the front road of the same enzym-dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, with approximately 1km on the front of the same enzym-based street.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant misconduct”). C.

The Plaintiff was indicted on August 31, 2015 due to the instant misconduct, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (class 1 and class 2) was revoked on October 2, 2015.

On November 17, 2015, the General Disciplinary Committee held a disciplinary committee and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the instant misconduct and violated Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, thereby falling under the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78(1)3 of the State Public Officials Act. On November 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff to dismiss the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review of the appeal, but was dismissed on March 17, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant misconduct, which was subject to disciplinary action standards for drinking driving retroactively, constitutes “the Plaintiff’s initial drinking operation,” and thus, Article 2(1) [Attachment Table 1-2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Decree of the Disciplinary Decree of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree (Ordinance No. 1106, Nov. 19, 2014), which was in force at the time of the instant misconduct, is a reasonable disciplinary action. The Defendant is a public official’s disciplinary action under Article 2(1) [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Decree of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree (Ordinance No. 1189, Aug. 19, 2015).