B. Whether a disciplinary action constitutes a removal from office under Article 17 (2) 1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Rules (negative)

B. Although the dismissal of a public official of Grade III or below and a public official of Grade III or below under Article 17(2)1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Rules are internal delegation to the head of the Gu, the dismissal of such public official does not constitute a dismissal by disciplinary action.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to Articles 6(1), 6(2), and 8(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act, the head of a local government has the authority to take disciplinary action against public officials under his/her jurisdiction and may delegate it to the head of the competent personnel committee under the conditions as prescribed by the regulations of the local government. Among such authority, it is clear that the authority to request disciplinary action is also included in the authority to request disciplinary action to the competent personnel committee. In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in Busan and the head of an affiliated organization under his/her jurisdiction pursuant to the proviso of Article 7(1) of the Local Public Officials Act, if a public official of Grade IV or lower is deemed to fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act, the head of a local government grants the authority to request disciplinary action without delay to the personnel committee in charge of the relevant disciplinary case, but this is not appropriate to grant the authority to the head of an affiliated agency, regardless of whether he/she exercises the authority to request disciplinary action.

Therefore, Article 2 (1) of the above Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Provisions can not be deemed to be a provision inconsistent with Article 6 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act, which is the mother corporation, and thus deemed null and void despite the fact that the defendant did not delegate his authority to request a disciplinary decision to the public officials belonging thereto to the head of Dobong-gu under Article 6 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act. However, the court below legitimately confirmed the fact that the defendant did not delegate his authority to request a disciplinary decision to the head of Dobong-gu, and judged that the disciplinary decision of this case against the plaintiff by the head of Dobong-gu is unlawful, and therefore, the disciplinary decision of this case against the plaintiff by the head of Dobong-gu is justified. Thus, this decision

2. We examine both the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.

According to the records, it is identical to the theory that the dismissal of a public official of class 1 and a public official of class 3 or below and a public official of class 1 or below of class 3 of Article 17 (2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Rules is internal delegation to the head of the Gu, but the dismissal is not a dismissal by disciplinary action. In addition, it is not reasonable to discuss that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the interpretation of the above personnel rules or in the incomplete hearing, or in the incomplete hearing, because it is difficult to view the defendant as a ground for delegation of the right to request a resolution on a public official

3. 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 judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)