[2] Where the President of the National University removed a person from office pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the President of the National University, who is a professor of a school and a scientific researcher, fabricated a false thesis to manipulate experimental data, etc., the case holding that the above disciplinary action is objectively unreasonable in light of the duty performed by a professor of the National University, the characteristics of the relevant research, the necessity of strict disciplinary action on the preparation of a false paper, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above disciplinary action is objectively unreasonable from the perspective of social norms

1. The judgment of the court below

The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, published and published a 204 thesis with the content that the Plaintiff established NT-1, a human somatic cell reproduction at around February 2004, 200-1, and the genetic fingerprint analysis on the above 204 paper (the examination of comparing and analyzing the identity of the genes extracted from somatic cells and stem cells and confirming the establishment of stem cell reproduction method) was operated by the researchers of the Plaintiff’s research team and the NT-1 stem cell line (No. 1, 200-1, 1, 205, 205, 205, 205, 20, 205, 3, 3, 4, 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,000, 3,2,000,2,2,000.)

Furthermore, the court below held that the disposition of this case was reached on the ground that the plaintiff neglected the duty to direct and supervise the Institute with respect to the thesis in 2004 and the thesis in 2005, and violated the duty to maintain good faith and dignity as a public educational official by directly participating in research data manipulation, and that the reason for disciplinary action of this case is recognized, but the trust in the scientific truth of the thesis in 2004 and 2005 was considerably damaged due to the acts of interference with the plaintiff's research affairs through the manipulation of the research results in a arbitrary and arbitrary examination results and the combination of stem cell lines, etc. under the circumstance that the defendant was not sufficiently revealed at the time of the disposition of this case, since the process or substance of the thesis in this case was not revealed, it was difficult for the plaintiff to have contributed significantly to the development of science with outstanding achievements in the field of research, etc., and that the plaintiff had made an excessive effort to establish stem cells in the field of animal reproduction, etc., and that the plaintiff was dismissed from his position for 200 years and revoked.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, it is difficult to accept the above decision of the court below on disciplinary action.

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, it is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure since the disciplinary measure as an exercise of authority substantially lacks validity under the social norms. In order for a public official to have remarkably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined in a case where it can be objectively and objectively deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure are objectively unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du16172, Nov. 11, 201

In the field of research, which requires strong loyalty, morality, and ethics in the nature of duties that the Plaintiff as a professor who provides students guidance and research at the National University, and the Plaintiff as a scientific person requires more strict control of research procedures and seek scientific truth in the course of the preparation of a thesis in order to ensure bioethics and safety. Moreover, since it is difficult for other scholars to verify the authenticity of the data out of the outside, subsequent research is carried out on the premise that the data, etc. listed in the thesis are fact-finding, and the subsequent research is conducted by other scholars, such as where the data itself is fabricated, there is no subsequent research if the data itself is fabricated, and thus, there is a significant damage to the whole academic community. Therefore, there is no serious responsibility for the scientific person’s act of preparing and publishing a thesis of false content by manipulating experimental data.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and evidence adopted by the lower court, the Plaintiff was responsible for direction and supervision to conduct research-related experiments as co-owners of 204 research papers and 2005, and Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 dispatched from 00 to the Plaintiff’s research team on the ground of the Plaintiff’s instruction and supervision of the genetic text of the 2004 paper, and Nonparty 1 did not request Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 to submit a 4-year stem cell cell paper to the 11-year stem cell line method of the 2005 paper without any instruction and supervision of Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 1’s 4-year stem cell line’s 11-year stem cell line method, and the Plaintiff did not request Non-Party 1 to submit a new research paper to Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 1 to verify the number of stem cell cells published in the 2004 paper.

According to the circumstances, the primary responsibility for which the trust in the scientific truth of the thesis in 2004 and 2005 was significantly damaged is not only the Plaintiff who neglected the direction and supervision of the Institute, but also the Plaintiff who ordered a wide range of experimental data manipulation and the false statement of the thesis. Considering the partial inspection results of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 as well as the stem cell mixing, etc. revealed after the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s responsibility for the preparation and publication of a false thesis cannot be deemed to be negligible.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s achievements in the field of animal reproduction research, etc., as acknowledged by the lower court, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s duties performed by the professor of the National University; (b) characteristics of the research in this case; (c) the need for strict disciplinary measures to prepare false papers; (d) the Plaintiff intentionally fabricated part of the data in this paper; and (e) the Plaintiff’s failure to take strict disciplinary measures, the Plaintiff’s establishment of research discipline and the Plaintiff’s failure to repair the public confidence in the entire scientific researchers and △△ University, etc., the disciplinary action taken in this case is objectively and objectively unreasonable, and thus, cannot be deemed to have been deemed to have deviates

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was illegal as it deviates from the scope of discretion, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of discretion in disciplinary action, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)