[파면처분무효확인][공1989.11.15.(860),1600]
(a) In case where a notice of an administrative disposition on a person under guard is delivered to his wife and that of an administrative disposition taking effect;
(b) The case holding that disciplinary action against a public official who has been acquitted in a criminal case is not necessarily null and void;
A. The arrival as a requisite for taking effect of an administrative disposition is not necessary for the other party to check the content of the administrative disposition, and it is sufficient for the other party to check the content of the administrative disposition. If the wife received the government personnel order notification from Gap at the address of Gap, it shall be deemed that the wife was in a situation where Gap's wife could check the content at the time of receiving the above notice even if the wife knew of the fact and the disposition authority knew of the fact, or the wife knew of the fact, or discarded the above notice without delivering it to Gap.
B. If Gap, who is a public official, was removed from office on the ground that he was subject to a bribe in connection with his duties, and the criminal case was found guilty at the appellate court, and in that criminal case Gap was the person who received money and valuables in the investigative agency and the court, but there was a final and conclusive verdict of not guilty in accordance with the Supreme Court's reversed and remanded judgment, the above disciplinary action can be deemed unlawful on the ground that it constitutes a ground for disciplinary action without any ground, and it cannot be said that it is objectively clear and objectively. Thus, the above disciplinary action
(b) Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 111 of the Civil Act;
Plaintiff
Minister of Finance and Economy
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu2402 decided June 7, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
With respect to No. 1:
In accordance with the reasoning of the reversal of the judgment remanded by a party member, the court below determined that the plaintiff's wife was in a situation where the plaintiff's wife was able to receive the government personnel order from the plaintiff at the plaintiff's domicile, even if the plaintiff's wife was aware of such fact, or the plaintiff's wife did not deliver the above notice to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's wife was in a situation where the plaintiff's wife was able to keep the contents at the time of receiving the above notice, since the plaintiff's wife was bound to receive the above notice, this conclusion cannot be different. The plaintiff's argument is without merit.
With respect to the second ground:
As determined by the court below, the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff in this case on the ground that he had received a bribe of KRW 3,00,000 in cash in connection with his duties, and on the other hand, after the above disciplinary action was taken, there was a judgment of conviction against the plaintiff in the appellate trial, but thereafter, the judgment of innocence was rendered in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court on the reversal and transmission, and if the plaintiff was in the criminal case and the investigation agency and the court, it cannot be said that it is objectively obvious that the disciplinary action was not based on the grounds for disciplinary action, and it is unlawful. Thus, the disciplinary action in this case is not necessarily null and void.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)