The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff was given 1,00,000 won to the president or the chief of the management department of the Sejong hotel around March 1982, and 1,00,000 won to the police officer around November 1, 1982, and 1,00,000 won as a bribe in connection with his duties, and that the plaintiff's misconduct constitutes a ground for disciplinary action against the duty under Articles 69 (1), 53 (1), and 55 of the Local Public Officials Act, since the plaintiff's misconduct constitutes a ground for disciplinary action against the duty under Articles 69 (1), 53 (1), and 55 of the Local Public Officials Act, the judgment of the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts or the application of laws and regulations.

In particular, in the criminal appellate trial against the plaintiff, there was a verdict of innocence for the crime that received 100,000 won or more from March 1982 among the above disciplinary reasons. However, even if it is not recognized that the above disciplinary reasons are received from the above 100,000 won, the records show that the rest of the misconduct alone does not lack to take the disposition of removal from the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is just in this point.

In addition, as long as the grounds for disciplinary action are acknowledged, there is no complaint even if the relevant criminal case has not yet been convicted, and even if the administrative litigation is conducted for the disciplinary action, there is no room for this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)