1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the plaintiff's additional determination as stated in paragraph (2) of the same Article concerning the additional assertion in the trial

2. The portion to be determined additionally

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that received four times an official commendation that can reduce disciplinary action according to the rules on fire fighting officers’ disciplinary action, etc., and the Defendant did not take into account the aforementioned merits, thereby abusing its discretionary power.

B. According to Article 10(1) of the Regulations on Disciplinary Measures against Fire-Fighting Officials, disciplinary action may be mitigated in cases where a person has received or contributed to the performance of his/her duties by the Prime Minister or higher under the Regulations on Government Commendation; Provided, That disciplinary action may be mitigated in cases where a fire-fighting officer lower than the Fire-Fighting Assistant Inspector or the Local Fire-Fighting Assistant Inspector has

According to Gap evidence No. 13, it is recognized that the plaintiff received the official commendation from the Jeju Do Governor on September 12, 1989, the official commendation from the Minister of Home Affairs on May 7, 1992, the official commendation from the Jeju Do Governor on November 9, 1996, and the official commendation from the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs on November 9, 2003.

However, according to the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s appointment as the Local Fire Captain on September 16, 2002 and the Local Fire Captain on September 1, 2008 was recognized, and the reason for the instant disposition was between 2011 and 2014, so it is possible for the Plaintiff to be subject to disciplinary mitigation for having received the commendation of the Prime Minister or higher, because the Plaintiff was between 2011 and 2014 (the part recognized by the first instance court was in 2014).

However, since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff received commendation from the Prime Minister or higher, the defendant did not consider the plaintiff's merits and did not err in the misapprehension of law.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff.