직권면직처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance '3. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion;
(b) relevant laws and regulations;
C. Unless the facts of recognition are found as follows, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3 to 9 pages) is the same as the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4
shall delete from the 8th page to the 19th page 18 to the 19th page.
The 8th parallels 20 to 9th parallels are as follows.
13) On January 10, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee seeking the revocation of the removal from position in this case, but the appeals review committee has filed the same year.
4. 8. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
On November 30, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the removal from position as Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap16247, but the same court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 30, 201.
On October 18, 2012, Seoul High Court Decision 201Nu45612, the appellate court revoked the instant disposition of removal from position on the ground that “the instant removal from position was unlawful due to the failure to undergo prior notification and hearing procedures prescribed in the Administrative Procedures Act” but Supreme Court Decision 2012Du26180, May 16, 2014, the appellate court reversed the above appellate judgment on the ground that “The removal from position under the State Public Officials Act, constitutes a matter deemed difficult or unnecessary due to the nature of the pertinent administrative action, or a matter that goes through procedures equivalent to administrative procedures, and thus, the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act concerning prior notification and hearing of opinions, etc., are not separately applicable.”
The former Administrative Procedures Act (amended by Act No. 11498, Oct. 22, 2010) as to the procedural illegality of the determination of the Act.