[직권면직처분취소][집31(2)특,167;공1983.6.15.(706),905]
The meaning of "when his service record is extremely poor", which is the reason for dismissal under Article 70 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act.
The term "when his service performance is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of ability to perform his duties under Article 70 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act" means when his service performance is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of ability to perform his duties by mental or physical means the time when his service performance is extremely poor, and it does not constitute a violation of orders falling under disciplinary reasons, a violation of official duties, a violation of duties, a neglect of duties, or a violation of duties, or an act of in
Articles 70(1)2 and 78 of the State Public Officials Act
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu191 Decided July 13, 1982
Plaintiff
The head of Gwangju District Office
Gwangju High Court Decision 82Gu83 delivered on October 28, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 5 are examined together.
Of the reasons stipulated in Article 70 of the State Public Officials Act, when work performance is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of job performance by a public official in performing his duties under paragraph (1) 2 of the same Article means when the public official violates his duties under this Act and any order issued under this Act (including the duties imposed by other Acts and subordinate statutes as a public official) or neglects his duties, the term “when the public official performs an act detrimental to his prestige or dignity, regardless of his duties inside or outside the scope of his duties” means when the work performance is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of capacity to properly perform his duties, and it does not constitute a violation of the order issued under the grounds for disciplinary action, breach of duties, neglect of duties, and breach of duties by the public official, and breach of duties by the public official in charge of his duty at the time of his new post office, and the public official in charge of his duty at the time of his new post office, as duly established by the court below, that the defendant is an employee in charge of his duty at the time of his replacement of his position under the same Article (1).
Therefore, even if all of the above facts are true, it does not constitute a ground for ex officio dismissal (the original trial is an argument about the two other grounds that the defendant asserted that the ex officio dismissal of this case is justifiable in the original trial, but according to the statement of the explanation of reasons for ex officio dismissal, etc. which is bound in the records, the grounds for the disposition of this case are three different grounds, so it cannot be considered a new trial, and the appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, as the grounds for the disposition of this case are three different grounds for the disposition of this case, and the appeal of this case cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal). Accordingly, the decision of the court below accepting the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of this case cannot be justified and any illegality cannot be
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)