[2] The case holding that disciplinary action in salary 3 months, which was taken by a professor of a university without the president's permission, did not deviate from or abuse of discretion, where the professor of a university conducts a golf campaign that is not only for private use on several occasions during working hours and prepares a weekly lecture book kept and managed by the president in a public manner differently from the fact

[2] The case holding that where a professor of a university conducts a golf campaign that is not only private service through several working hours without the president's permission and prepares a lecture book that the president keeps and manages in a public manner differently from the facts and takes disciplinary action for three months of reduction of salary by causing the disciplinary action, such misconduct and degree do not seem to be less than that of the professor, and in addition, considering the social role as university professor, characteristics of duties, administrative purpose to be achieved by disciplinary action, etc., the above disciplinary action is not against the principle of equity or is too harsh than that of the cause attributable to him/her, and thus, the disciplinary discretion is not abused or abused.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

[Evidence for Adoption: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and the whole purport of oral argument]

(a) Original height;

(1) On March 1, 1980, he shall be appointed as a full-time lecturer at the Korea National Institute of Social Science.

(2) Promotion to professors on September 1, 1997

B. Defendant, June 1, 1998, a request for a disciplinary decision made by the Plaintiff

(c) Special Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials, and Resolution on August 1, 1998;

D. The Minister of Education, on August 12, 1998, takes disciplinary action of this case against the plaintiff in March of his salary reduction (the appointment right of the defendant is succeeded by the amendment of the Decree No. 16564 of September 30, 199).

(A) Disciplinary reasons

(1) A golf course from February 196 to October 1997, by leaving the place of work without permission for 23 times during the working hours, and entering the golf course.

(2) Preparation of a false weekly lecture record dated April 10, 1996 and July 2, 1996

(B) Grounds Act: Articles 56, 58, and 78 of the State Public Officials Act;

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) The basis for the determination;

According to Article 83-2 of the State Public Officials Act, the request for disciplinary resolution shall not be made at the expiration of two years from the date on which the cause for disciplinary action occurred. According to this, among the grounds for disciplinary action in this case, it is evident that the plaintiff entered a golf course from February 1, 1996 to May 31, 196, and the disciplinary action has already been completed with respect to the fact that the plaintiff made a false entry into a golf course from April 2, 1996, and that the period of prescription has already been completed. Thus, the decision on the legitimacy of the disposition in this case shall be made only on the remaining non-performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu184, May 9, 197; 91Nu4102, Nov. 22, 1991).

B. Whether the grounds for disciplinary action are applicable

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(a)In the light of the university professors’ work and the work of the local university, if there is no lectures, the professors belonging to the Defendant operate autonomously time and frequently enter the golf course in order to cut down their physical strength on the extension of academic activities, and the Defendant also recognized this fact and ratified it, which shall not be deemed grounds for the disciplinary action.

(B) On May 16, 1996, the term of the first scheduled lecture was not closed during the festival period and completed. However, in order to comply with the defendant's academic schedule, it merely stated on July 2, 1996 that the above-mentioned lecture was reinforced on July 16, 1996 on the day, and thus, it cannot be deemed as grounds for disciplinary action.

(2) Facts of recognition

[Adoption Evidence: Evidence No. 3-16, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2-1, 2-2, and the whole purport of oral argument]

(A) During 13 times from June 1, 1996 to October 31, 1997, the Plaintiff engaged in a golf course on a nearby golf course operated by the Air Force No. 3975 unit during working hours, and did not obtain the Defendant’s permission, and did not report ex post facto.

(B) On July 2, 1996, from around 07:06 to December 30, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a golf course with the day-time entrance of 1,2,00 city (0 to 10:50) in the day-to-day entrance of the said golf course, even though it performed a golf course at the said golf course.

(3) Determination

(A) Entry into the golf course

The main duty as a professor of a university is not only to complete the lecture assigned to a non- group of professors, but also to educate and guide students, and faithfully perform his/her own academic research activities for the purpose of truth-finding. Therefore, it is clear that the Plaintiff’s act of conducting a golf campaign which is not only private work during working hours without the Defendant’s permission is an act of violating the duty of good faith and duty of prohibition of escape from work as provided in Articles 56 and 58 of the State Public Officials Act, and there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant ratified it.

(B) The fact that the weekly lecture is falsely made

As alleged by the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff completed the lecture corresponding to the city of July 1, 1996 in advance, the act of preparing the weekly lecture book that the defendant has kept and managed officially differently from the fact constitutes an act of neglecting his duties in violation of the duty of good faith provided in Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act.

C. Whether disciplinary discretion is exceeded and abused

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) Since June 1996, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff was unable to engage in activities for the democratic operation of the Teaching Council as the chairperson of the Teaching Council Steering Committee from around June 1996; (b) again, led to the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action; and (c) accordingly, the instant disposition was rendered by abusing the authority of disciplinary action for retaliation, and is unlawful

(B) In light of the fact that the Defendant has been working in good faith since the appointment, and that there was no problem about other professors’ access to a golf course at all, the instant disposition not only loses equity but also deviates from and abused discretion.

(2) Determination:

(A)As seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 3-10, and 15 and the testimony of witness correspondence alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant made the instant disposition as a retaliation, and there is no other obvious evidence.

(b)In addition, as recognized above, the plaintiff's misconduct and its degree are not deemed to be somewhat weak, and considering the social role as university professor, characteristics of duties, and administrative purpose to be achieved by disciplinary action, all of the circumstances asserted by the plaintiff can not be deemed to violate the principle of equity or to deviate from or abuse the disciplinary discretion due to excessive suspicion compared to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-tae (Presiding Justice)