(영문) 서울고등법원 2006. 9. 29. 선고 2006누6767 판결[전임계약직공무원(나급)재계약거부처분및감봉처분취소][미간행]
Plaintiff (Law Firm Rois, Attorneys Jeon Man-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Law Firm Daul, Attorney Seo Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
September 15, 2006
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap1077 decided Feb. 3, 2006
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant confirms that his/her intention to terminate his/her former contract of public official in contractual service (B) with the defendant as of October 13, 2004 is null and void. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the application for modification to the lawsuit of this case to the day of complete payment.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why a member should explain are as follows: Each “Article 8(3)” of the first instance court Decision 8.5 and 17. Each “Article 8(3)” shall be dismissed as “Article 8”, “Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and shall be deleted as “Article 14, 15, and 18”, “No. 20, 21, and 24”, “No. 12” in the first half of the 10th, “No. 11-1 and 2”, “No. 12” in the second half of the 10th, and “No. 3. 13th of the 13th reduction of the 13th, as it is the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for the addition of Article 8(3) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules on the Management of Local Public Officials, and shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
In order for the plaintiff who is a public official in contractual service to take the reduction of salary, the plaintiff can take a disciplinary measure in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 (2) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials and the execution of disciplinary action. According to Article 2 (5) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, the defendant shall take a disciplinary measure through the deliberation and resolution procedure by the disciplinary committee established at the immediately higher level agency of the administrative agency to which he belongs. Thus, the defendant's disposition of salary reduction in this case without deliberation and resolution by the disciplinary committee under the above Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials. However, the above salary reduction measure in this case cannot be deemed as a disciplinary measure as part of the change of the contract under the Local Contract for Employment of Public Officials and the Local Contract Public Officials Act, which was concluded on July 1, 202 between the defendant and the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot be deemed as a disciplinary measure as part of the change of the contract under the Local Public Officials Act. Moreover, Article 2 (3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials does not apply to the plaintiff's special career.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)