Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's defense to the effect that the lawsuit of this case was not dismissed because it was improper from the procedure for examining the appeal under Article 67 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act, but the lawsuit of this case is clearly a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the plaintiff is automatically null and void as to the defendant's disposition of this case. Thus, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition as above, the above defense is not required through the procedure of the previous trial, and it is not acceptable.

For the following bills:

The fact that the defendant, on July 21, 1980, submitted a resignation of the plaintiff's name and dismissed the plaintiff who worked as a local administrative assistant in the office of the Busan Special Metropolitan City, the Busan Special Metropolitan City, the Busan Special Metropolitan City, and the Dong office of the Busan Special Metropolitan City

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant ordered the public officials of Grade IV and above in the above office on July 14, 1980 to submit a universal resignation list, but the plaintiff refused to comply with this order, and the head of the general affairs division including the vice head of the Busan Jin-gu Office, the head of the administrative affairs division, the head of the Dong Dong Dong-gu, and the head of the affairs division, etc. shall make the plaintiff prepare and submit a resignation statement, and even if the Busan Jin-gu Office, a public holiday, was forced to select the Japanese-dong office, which was a public holiday, to conduct a retaliation audit before and after it, but the plaintiff did not submit a resignation statement, but the head of Dong Dong-dong, without the plaintiff's consent on the 20th of that month, did not submit a resignation statement with the plaintiff's seal affixed in the above office, and the plaintiff's resignation was prepared and submitted to the defendant, which led to the plaintiff's nullification or nullification of the plaintiff's dismissal disposition.

Therefore, although the plaintiff was unable to prepare and submit the above statement of dismissal from office without the plaintiff's name, the above statement of dismissal from office is insufficient to accept the above statement of dismissal from office, even if it is based on all evidence required by the plaintiff, and the above statement of evidence Nos. 3 (L. 1) such as evidence No. 3 (L. 3) without dispute. If the plaintiff's testimony by the witness Lee Jong-jin's witness's witness's testimony and oral argument are collected, the above statement of dismissal from office head of Dong Dong-dong can easily accept the above statement of dismissal from office's 4th or higher official's resignation from the defendant on July 14, 1980 and it can not be seen that the plaintiff's above statement of removal from office's resignation from office's office's conclusion that the plaintiff's removal from office's resignation can not be easily accepted, and the plaintiff's above statement of removal from office's resignation from office's office's conclusion that the plaintiff's removal from office's above statement of dismissal from office can not be accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff as the losing party.

on June 23, 1981

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)