[해임처분취소][공1985.1.15.(744),87]
Whether the grounds for disciplinary action are identical even if only the date and time of receiving money or goods are recognized differently for about one month (affirmative)
If there is a difference between the donor, the amount and the circumstances of the receipt of money and valuables, the reason for the disciplinary action and the facts of the illegality of the original judgment are identical to the basic facts even if there is a difference of about one month at the date of the receipt.
Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Judgment of the court below]
The Administrator of Public Procurement Service
Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu96 delivered on March 20, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the records, although the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 of the Nos. 6 and 7 of the lawsuit is clearly disputed the plaintiff as a site for its establishment, the judgment of the court below is erroneous that the plaintiff has no dispute over the establishment of the evidence, but the court below stated in the latter part of the ruling that the establishment of the evidence is recognized by the testimony of the witness Lee-hee, and the record is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and even if the evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 9 of the lawsuit was prepared after the commencement of the disciplinary procedure of this case, it cannot be determined that the evidence is inadmissible, and the evidence Nos. 4 cannot be used as a material for fact-finding, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the facts in the process of fact-finding, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts in the process of fact-finding.
2. According to the records, the disciplinary action in this case was a disciplinary cause that the plaintiff received 200,000 won from the non-party company related to his duties as a reward for the purchase contract for the purchase of goods from the non-party company related to his duties on August 1982. However, the judgment below concluded that the plaintiff received 200,000 won as a contract reward from the non-party company related to his duties in relation to the non-party company's duties in September 1982. Thus, even if there is a difference between the amount of money provided and the amount of money received for the same one-month period from the date of receipt, the grounds for disciplinary action and the facts of the judgment below's acknowledgement are identical to the basic facts, so it cannot be said that there is a misapprehension of legal principles as to disciplinary action, such as theory of litigation.
Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)