[파면처분취소][집17(2)행,025]
The validity of a disposition of dismissal from office made pursuant to Article 73-2 (3) of the State Public Officials Act after a new illness of a public official released from office pursuant to Article 73-2 (1) 1 is cured.
After a new illness of a public official released from his/her position under Article 73-2 (1) 1 of the State Public Officials Act is cured, the validity of an action for dismissal made pursuant to paragraph (3) of the same Article.
Article 73(2) of the State Public Officials Act
Plaintiff
Busan Railroad Center (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 67Gu66 delivered on February 26, 1969
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The Defendant’s agent’s ground of appeal No. 1
According to the facts established by the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was absent from office for 365 days, which was the cause of the disposition during the period from April 11, 1967 to the time when he was subject to the disposition of removal from office from office from the defendant on April 11, 1967, while he was employed as a railroad official for 24 years in good faith after being employed for 1946.6. The plaintiff was absent from office without permission for 20 days after the deduction of the prescribed amount of sick leave, the number of annual leave days, and the remaining 20 days after the deduction of the number of annual leave days. In addition, around June 1967, the plaintiff requested that the defendant be assigned to the defendant after the restoration of health, and the plaintiff was not obliged to be assigned to the position for 3 months after being assigned to the plaintiff, and thus, it is not justified in the judgment below that the defendant did not have any special reason to assign a new position without delay when he was dismissed from office.
(2) health expenses;
According to the original judgment, even if the position cancellation disposition, as in the theory of lawsuit, became final and conclusive without objection, the court below determined that the lawsuit for cancellation of the disposition of dismissal for the reason of the position cancellation, and that the reason for such cancellation can be tried again. However, as described in the former part, the reason for illegality lies in the defendant's duty to reduce his position, and the plaintiff's act of absence without permission is not based on the reason for dismissal without permission. Thus, the above judgment based on this premise is unnecessary and it does not add to the argument that the above judgment is illegal. Therefore, the court below did not explain the argument that the above judgment is illegal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Gyeong-ri, Kim & Kim