[해임처분취소][공1992.2.1.(913),538]
(a) The legality of disciplinary proceedings on the heads of public officials in extraordinary civil service, among public officials of special career service equivalent to Grade V in general service, who are public officials of Grade V in general service in accordance with the Regulations on the Appointment, etc. of Heads of Mayang-gun/Eup/Myeon, enacted by the Regulations on the Mayang-gun Regulations (affirmative);
(b) The case holding that a dismissal disposition on a face of unauthorized removal from his/her own forest without permission shall not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, on three occasions by destroying his/her own forest without permission, thereby impairing the dignity of a public official, and upon reporting the fact in a newspaper, it does not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority;
A. According to Article 73-3 of the Local Public Officials Act and Article 12 (1) of the Regulations on the Appointment, etc. of Heads of Nanyang-gun/Eup/Myeon, which was enacted by the Regulations of Nanyang-gun on May 21, 198 pursuant to the order delegation of Article 13 (3) of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the head of Nanyang-gun/Eup/Myeon shall request the relevant personnel committee to make a resolution on a disciplinary action on the head of Nanyang-gun under Article 69 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act, since the head of Nanyang-gun shall request the relevant personnel committee to take a resolution on a disciplinary action on the head of Nanyang-gun under Article 69 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act, the head of Nanyang-gun shall be subject to the resolution of the personnel committee of Nanyang-gun in the case of disciplinary action on the head of Nanyang-gun.
B. The case holding that the dismissal disposition of the plaintiff by the head of the Myeon against the plaintiff does not constitute deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, since the plaintiff's act of escaping from his workplace for six days through three times without the approval of the head of the Gun or permission, when the plaintiff, a Myeon-style, destroyed the forest by cutting the miscellaneous trees and planting the 300 saw trees using heavy equipment without permission on his own forest and land, and the Do-head ordered the head of the Do to severely reprimand the plaintiff as a public official in charge of corruption, after reporting the newspaper or sick leave, violates the duty of good faith and the duty of prohibition of escape from his workplace, and damages the public official's dignity.
(a)Article 13(a) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 2(3)2 of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 73-3(b) of the Local Public Officials Act, Articles 48, 50(1), 55 and 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act;
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1
Drillea Gun
Gwangju High Court Decision 89Gu1109 delivered on April 18, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2
According to Article 109 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 2 (3) 2 (b) of the Local Public Officials Act, and Article 4 (2) of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, the head of the Myeon is a public official in extraordinary civil service equivalent to Grade V in general service appointed by the head of the Gun. According to Article 73-3 of the Local Public Officials Act, the provisions of Chapter 9 shall apply mutatis mutandis to public officials in non-career service such as amnesty under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, except as otherwise provided in other Acts. Article 13 of the Regulations on Disciplinary Action and Appeal against the Presidential Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10391, Jul. 18, 1981) provides that Article 69 (1) 2 (b) of the Act shall be removed from office or disciplinary action under this Decree, and Article 9 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act shall be provided that the Plaintiff shall be subject to disciplinary action under the proviso of the Local Public Officials Act, and Article 9 (1) and (2) of the Eup/Myeon.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law as to the interpretation of the law on disciplinary procedure like the theory of lawsuit.
In addition, the Supreme Court Decision 80Nu364 delivered on July 28, 1981) cited by the theory of the lawsuit (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10391 delivered on July 18, 1981) is related to the disciplinary proceedings on the amnesty before the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 10391 delivered on July 18, 1981, and thus, it cannot be a proper precedent in this case. The arguments are without merit.
2. As to the third ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff, while in office as the head of Yangyang-gun Office, purchased the forest land of this case from the non-party 1 to the non-party 5, and purchased tree seedlings directly after completing the registration of ownership transfer regarding the forest land of this case on March 8, 1989. On April 3 and April 1 of the same year without permission, he was aware of the articles among the above 4, 7, 3, and 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 7, 1, 1, 4, 1, 7, 1, 1, ., 1, .,
In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or disciplinary discretion due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the conclusion
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)