2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 16, 1970, the Plaintiff was appointed as a local public official of Busan Metropolitan City (the current name was changed to Busan Metropolitan City) at the time of Busan Metropolitan City (the current name was changed to Busan Metropolitan City) and was charged with the resident registration entry and exit affairs at the cdong Office in the cdong Office in the jurisdiction of Busan Seo-gu Branch Office (the post office in Busan Metropolitan City was succeeded to the Nam-gu, and the post office in Busan Metropolitan City was newly established) from October 16, 1974. On March 29, 1975, the Plaintiff was charged with the official document such as the moving reporter processing department.

B. Accordingly, on July 3, 1975, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal for a suspended sentence of two years with prison labor for one year in Busan District Court Decision 75Da322 decided on July 3, 1975, but the above sentence became final and conclusive.

C. On April 14, 1975, the head of the branch office removed the Plaintiff from his position (hereinafter “instant removal from position”) on grounds of the Plaintiff’s misconduct, and on April 15, 1975, the head of the branch office removed the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant removal from position”). D. The head of the branch office removed the Plaintiff through a resolution of the personnel committee of B branch offices on April 15, 1975.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above removal disposition, the Plaintiff filed a judgment of dismissal in the first instance court (Seoul High Court 75Gu93), and appealed (Supreme Court 76Nu224), but the appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court 76Nu224), and even thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the removal from position and the removal disposition (Seoul High Court 84GuNo. 105), but was ruled against the Plaintiff, and thereafter, filed several administrative litigation, the request for retrial, etc., but all of the appeals were dismissed or dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6 (including branch numbers in the case of additional statements), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The summary of the cause of the instant lawsuit is that the instant disposition of dismissal and removal was taken by the head of the branch office that did not have the authority to take the disposition, and the grounds for the disciplinary action are also determined.