손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is that the part concerning the claim for damages on the ground of unfair dismissal (the judgment of the court of first instance as to the claim for damages on the ground of unfair dismissal) of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, the court
2. Parts - Parts -
3. Determination as to the claim for damages on the ground of unfair dismissal tort
A. The removal of the plaintiffs' assertion against G is based not only on the judgment subject to a retrial based on Emergency Decree No. 1, which is null and void, but also on the ground that it did not undergo disciplinary proceedings set forth in the former State Public Officials Act, which was enforced at the time, and thereby constitutes a civil tort as an unfair dismissal.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the amount equivalent to the lost income and the actual retirement allowance, which is the property damage suffered by G due to the above unlawful act, and the consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiffs who are G and their families.
B. In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the defect must be serious and apparent. In general, the circumstance that a law violates the Constitution cannot be objectively clear before the Constitutional Court renders a decision of unconstitutionality. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the reason that a law, which forms the basis for an administrative disposition, violates the Constitution, can only be the ground for revocation of such administrative disposition, and it cannot be the ground for revocation of the administrative disposition.
In addition, the issue of whether an administrative disposition based on a law that is unconstitutional is null and void is separate from the retroactive effect of a decision of unconstitutionality, and thus, it cannot be said that an administrative disposition based on a law that is unconstitutional is null and void as a matter of course, and rather, an administrative disposition that takes effect after the period of revocation lawsuit has already expired.