[2] In a case where Party A, the president of a school, was subject to a three-month disciplinary measure of suspension from office for Party B, and the court subsequently rendered a judgment that the said disciplinary measure was unlawful, the case holding that it is difficult to view that such circumstance could be easily identified if it is objectively evident that the facts caused by the disciplinary measure against Party B cannot be deemed as a ground for disciplinary measure or if he paid a little attention

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the liability for damages caused by an improper disciplinary action

The amount of consolation money for mental suffering caused by tort can be determined by the fact-finding court at its own discretion in consideration of all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43165 delivered on November 26, 2002, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the amount of consolation money in consideration of all the circumstances, including the Plaintiff’s career, social status and education degree, the circumstances in this case, the degree of the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action, the Minister’s request for disciplinary action, and the disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee, the disciplinary action in this case was revoked, and the Plaintiff partially recognized the grounds for disciplinary action.

Examining the above legal principles and relevant evidence, the court below’s determination of the amount of consolation money as such is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

B. As to the liability for damages caused by the exclusion of examiners

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that Defendant 1, the president of ○○○○ School (hereinafter “○○○○”) who is the president of ○○○○ School (hereinafter “○○○”) cannot be deemed as tort if he did not commission the Plaintiff, the full-time professor of the recruitment field, as an examiner, pursuant to the amended provisions citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no error of law by failing

C. As to the liability for damages caused by defamation

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to defamation on the grounds that it is difficult to readily conclude that the expression of the notice in this case was an infringement of the Plaintiff’s social value or evaluation, and that it is difficult to view it as a factual evaluation or opinion, and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by wrong application of the law,

2. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 and Korea

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a State public official, as prescribed by the State Public Officials Act and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, when the person having authority over disciplinary measures against a State public official has requested the disciplinary committee to make a disciplinary measure, and the disciplinary committee has made a disciplinary measure according to the contents of the disciplinary measure, if the disciplinary measure is deemed to have been conducted autonomously by the persons having authority over disciplinary measures or by the person having authority over disciplinary measures, and it is not unreasonable to take the disciplinary measure in light of the grounds for disciplinary action actually recognized, the disciplinary measure should be deemed to have been caused by a mistake in interpreting the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the seriousness of the disciplinary measure. Therefore, in such a case, the disciplinary measure cannot be held liable for tort on the ground that it erred in the determination of disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da6823, Apr. 23, 1996, etc.). However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is unreasonable to readily recognize that the disciplinary measure is an unlawful or unreasonable act under the intention of the public official under consideration of the 20th degree of disciplinary measure and its nature.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, records, and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes cited by the court below. ① The Minister of Culture is recognized to have been subject to a comprehensive audit with respect to ○○○○ from March 18, 2009 to April 24 of the same year, and, at the time of June 16, 2009, Nonparty 1, the president of ○○○○○, was required to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff based on five grounds such as non-performance of performance and budget waste, etc. Based on the comprehensive audit and inspection demanded by Nonparty 2, who is the vice head of the ○○○○○○○○○○ Office, and Defendant 1, who was appointed as the president around August 209, was not subject to a disciplinary action by the head of other administrative agency, for the reason that the pertinent disciplinary action was against the Plaintiff for which he/she was found to have been subject to a disciplinary action by the said disciplinary review committee within one month after the resignation of ○○○ Office.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 requested a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff to Nonparty 1, a person having authority over disciplinary action, based on the results of a comprehensive audit, and Defendant 1 requested a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff after two months from the time of receipt of the request, and requested the disciplinary committee to take part in the disciplinary measure based on the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and requested the disciplinary committee to take part in the disciplinary measure, and then the disciplinary measure was taken according to the disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee. The appeals review committee belonging to the Ministry of Education only reduced the disciplinary measure for two months after recognizing some grounds for disciplinary action, and it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 was subject to a disciplinary measure for three months due to unfair suspension, such as finding the Plaintiff from ○○○○○○○○○, a person having authority over disciplinary action, based on the overall audit and inspection results.

Nevertheless, solely based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is sufficient to view the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiff as taking advantage of the general audit intention of the head of the cultural department, and that most of the disciplinary grounds for disciplinary action disciplinary action, which became disciplinary action, and disciplinary action, cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for disciplinary action, and that Defendant 1 was easily aware of such circumstances when Defendant 1 was aware of, or paid attention to, such circumstances. In so doing, the lower court recognized Defendant 1’s personal liability for damages, along with Defendant 1’s liability for damages.

Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for establishment of tort due to disciplinary action, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The above defendants' ground of appeal assigning this error is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant 1, the part against the Defendants among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal against Defendant 4 and 3 are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)