[해임처분취소][공1983.11.15.(716),1614]
The propriety of disciplinary action or dismissal of a person who requested for the consideration of convenience in the procedures for customs clearance of personal effects
If the plaintiff asked the public officials working for the Korea Customs Service to ask for the convenience of the inspection at the time of customs clearance of personal effects over 2,3 occasions, it can be deemed that the purpose of this request is to request the person to be placed in front of the goods prohibited from being imported or restricted from being imported. Thus, the plaintiff's so-called violation of the duty of good faith and the duty of the maintenance of dignity under Articles 56 and 63 of the State Public Officials Act and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 of the same Act. The contents of this misconduct constitute "in a case where the public official's intention is minor but has intention," which is the criteria for dismissal or suspension from office under the rules on the disciplinary action against the public official's quantity, which is the direction of the Korea Customs Service, cannot be deemed to
Articles 56, 63, and 78 of the State Public Officials Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Head of Kim Jong-po
Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu481 delivered on February 2, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
With respect to No. 1:
Examining the records in comparison with the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) after cooking the evidence of the judgment of the court below, the reasons why the plaintiff became aware of the non-party; (b) before and after the plaintiff asked the public officials working at the entry inspection team to take advantage of the convenience of personal belongings inspection on two occasions; and (c) although only one time is not his own work, the non-party's wife asked the public officials to take advantage of the convenience of customs clearance procedure; and (d) the plaintiff requested the public officials working at the inspection team to take advantage of the convenience of customs clearance procedure; and (e) the plaintiff requested the public officials working at the inspection team to take advantage of the convenience of customs clearance procedure; and (e) it cannot be deemed that the non-party's request for the above judgment made by the public officials with the non-party's personal belongings or the goods whose import is restricted; and therefore, (e) the plaintiff's so-called violates the duty of good faith or the duty of dignity maintenance under Articles 56 and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, and there are no errors in the judgment.
With respect to the second ground:
According to the records, the decision of the court below is justified in rejecting the argument of abuse of discretionary power since the defendant's choice of disciplinary dismissal cannot be deemed to go beyond the scope of discretion in light of the measures that judged that the plaintiff's misconduct in the decision of the court below constitutes "in the absence of intention, but there is no intention," which is the standard of dismissal or suspension from office under the rules on the disciplinary action of public officials, which is the direction of the Korea Customs Service, and all other circumstances. There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to discretion of disciplinary decision or lack of reason. Thus, there
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)