[행정처분취소][집18(3)행,104]
The scope of disciplinary action against local public officials and the judgment of legality of the court;
In the disciplinary action against a local public official, unless it exceeds the legitimate scope of the discretion that it is required to belong to the discretion of the public official under Articles 69 and 70 of the Local Public Officials Act, the court may not determine the legality of the discretionary action.
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Plaintiff
Busan City Mayor
Daegu High Court Decision 69Gu30 delivered on March 25, 1970
The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
We examine the Defendant’s Attorney’s grounds of appeal;
Based on evidence, the judgment below issued the above request to Non-Party 3 at around October 1967 upon the plaintiff's request from Non-Party 1 and 2 residing in the territory of the Young-gu Office of Yong-do and at around September 1967, where the plaintiff had been in office as the director of the construction division of the Young-gu Office of Busan and at least 250,000 won, and upon the plaintiff's request from Non-Party 3 for the above request from Non-Party 3 on the Dong-ri road where Dongin et al. reside, the plaintiff's request was made, and the non-party 1 and 2 received 100,000 won guarantee checks which he provided by Dongin et al. while he was aware of the fact that the plaintiff's request was made as the case of mediation, and the plaintiff refused to use the above 7,000,0000 won, which was the most attractive for the above misconduct and refused to use it as a public official for about 25 years.
However, it is necessary to select the kind of disciplinary action against a local public official under Articles 69 and 70 of the Local Public Officials Act, and if this discretion does not deviate from the legitimate scope, the court cannot determine the legality of such disciplinary action. However, according to the above facts found in the original judgment, the plaintiff received 200,000 won guarantee checks to the non-party 3, who is an employee of the same city/Si/Gu office, at the request of residents as the head of the construction division of the Busan City/Gu office, and received 200,000 won as a bribe in connection with his duties, and the remaining 10,000 won was sentenced to a fine of 50,000 won due to the plaintiff's consumption and the defendant's act of severely impairing the dignity of the public official, and even if there were circumstances such as the original judgment, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to removal of the discretion of the defendant against the plaintiff.
Therefore, the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu