직권면직처분무효확인 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The plaintiff in this court is defendant Republic of Korea.
1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiff asserted in this court while appealed, are not significantly different from the contents asserted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and even if all the evidence presented to the court of first instance and this court are examined, the
The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment under Paragraph (2) as to the plaintiff's assertion emphasized or added by the court of this case, and therefore, it shall be cited in the summary of the judgment pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42
2. Additional determination
A. As to the assertion that he was not notified of the standby order, the Plaintiff asserted that he was not notified of the standby order in relation to the Plaintiff’s issuance of the standby order under D’s control (hereinafter “instant standby order”) on September 17, 2012 by the Administrator of the Chungcheongbuk Office.
The arrival as a requirement for taking effect of an administrative disposition is sufficient until the other party to the disposition actually becomes aware of the details of the written disposition and the other party to the disposition is in a state recognizable.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du60577, Mar. 9, 2017). However, Defendant Chungcheongbuk Commissioner, by implementing the instant waiting order official document on September 17, 2012, was placed in a state where the Plaintiff, who was obligated to work as a normal service relationship, was in a state where he/she could have known the fact.
Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted, since the instant standby order is deemed to have reached the Plaintiff.
B. Regarding the assertion that there was no measure such as education and training after the standby order, the Plaintiff was included in the scope of dismissal from position, and thus, pursuant to Article 73-3(3) and (4) of the State Public Officials Act, necessary measures such as education and training or the grant of special research tasks should have been taken against the Plaintiff for not more than three months.