1. On February 20, 2012, the Defendant issued a disciplinary action of one-month suspension against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, as the postmaster of ○○○ post office, uses the sum of the handling fees deposited by the said post office to the deposit account of the said post office (hereinafter “instant fees”), only for the purpose necessary for performing the duties of the said post office, which would violate the accounting order by arbitrarily transferring it to the Nonparty’s deposit account, a designee under the Special Post Offices Act.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not limit the use of the instant fee as above, and the Plaintiff actually used part of the instant fee for the purpose of performing the duties of the said post office and returned the remainder from the Nonparty. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the act of transferring the instant fee to the deposit account of the Nonparty does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action and sought the revocation of the instant disposition.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant fee was a public fund that should be used only for the purpose of performing the duties of ○○ post office, and that the Plaintiff, the head of the post office, has a duty to keep and manage it, but the transfer of the fee to the Nonparty’s deposit account so that the Nonparty could arbitrarily use it constitutes an act that

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Article 13 of the former Special Post Offices Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) provides that “The Minister of Knowledge Economy may pay fees and administrative expenses necessary for performing the duties of a special post office or deliver goods.” Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Special Post Offices Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning No. 24, Sept. 2, 2014) provides that “The authority of the Minister of Knowledge Economy with respect to the said duties is delegated to a letter of application by Presidential Decree.” Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Special Post Offices Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning No. 24, Sept. 2, 2014) provides that “The head of a physical application shall pay handling fees for the duties handled by a special post office, but the type of the duties to be paid and the amount of payment shall be determined and publicly notified by the head of the Korea Post.” The foregoing provision does not specify

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party paid KRW 1,650,00 and KRW 6,800,000 for the purchase of office buildings, waterproof construction and external painting construction at the request of the plaintiff, and KRW 26,215,630,00 for the purchase of door-to-door vehicles at the request of the plaintiff. The plaintiff raised the issue of the Board of Audit and Inspection concerning the actual status of the operation of the fee of this case, and then he received the return from the non-party and directly managed the fee.

In full view of the above legal provisions, the Enforcement Rule, and each of the above facts, even if the Plaintiff transferred the instant fees to the Nonparty’s deposit account, such act does not constitute an act that disturbs the order of accounting. As recognized by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant fees as an act disturbing the order of accounting even if the Plaintiff transferred them to the Nonparty’s deposit account. As so acknowledged by the lower court, the Korea Post classified postal service fees out of the special post office handling fees as an item of general acceptance expense, setting the general acceptance expense as the basic expense for the operation of the government agency, and distributed it to the relevant agency, which prohibits enforcement other than the details of the budget, or even if the Nonparty

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the handling fee of the former Special Post Offices, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)