B. Whether it is possible to seek nullification of the removal from position that has lost its effect by the removal from office

(c) Whether ipso facto retirement from the position can be subject to administrative litigation.

2. Even if the effect of the removal from position is invalidated by the removal from one's position, it may be claimed for nullification of the removal from one's position as long as there is interest in confirmation.

3. The ipso facto retirement by a disposition of removal from position occurs as an effect on the existence of a certain period of time in the status of removal from position, and it is not an administrative disposition that is separate ipso facto retirement, and thus can not be the object

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal concerning the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal as to the claim for nullification of the removal from position (ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when comparing the above two reasons after the removal from position becomes final and conclusive by the evidences of the plaintiff, the court below held that (b), (c) the removal from position is identical to (b), (f) the removal from position, and (d) the causes of the removal are identical to (c), (b) the causes of the removal, and (c) the causes of the removal are identical to (b), (b), and (c) the causes of the removal, whichever are less than 24,00,00 won for the project expenses under (a) (b) the removal from position, whichever are less than 6 (b) the removal from position, and (c) the removal from position is less than 17 (a) the removal from position is less than 6 (b) the removal from position, whichever is less than 1) the removal from position, and (d) the removal from position is less than 7 (1) the removal from position, which is not less than 1) the total reasons for the removal from position.

The Supreme Court precedents (Supreme Court Decision 7Nu148 delivered on December 26, 1978) held that if public officials were removed from their position for the same reason as that of the above provision of Article 73-2 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, their status as the public officials continue to exist, and if the public officials were removed from their position for the same reason, the first removal from position should be invalidated after the removal from position for the same reason as that of the public officials. In addition, the Supreme Court Decision 7Nu148 delivered on December 26, 1978, which held that the first removal from position would not be effective after the removal from position was made for the same reason as that of the above provision of Article 73-2 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act, the first removal from position should be deemed to be the same if the first removal from position was made for the same reason as that of the disciplinary committee after the removal from position was made for the same reason as that of the above public officials (No. 4).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the grounds of both are different is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship between the removal from position and the removal from position, or by incomplete deliberation, and even if the effect of the removal from position is lost, the defendant has a benefit to seek nullification of the removal from position as long as there is a benefit to seek confirmation.

Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified, and in this respect, the judgment of the court below as to the claim for nullification of the removal from position shall not be reversed.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal as to the claim for nullification of the ipso facto retirement disposition (ground of appeal No. 3).

However, according to Article 73-2 (4) of the State Public Officials Act, where a person who was released from his position under Article 73-2 (4) 2 and 5 of the State Public Officials Act is not assigned to a position even after six months have passed, he shall be retired ipso facto from his position at the expiration of six months. This ipso facto retirement is merely an effect on the fact that the status of the removal from position remains in force for a certain period of time. Thus, once the removal from position becomes null and void or cancelled, the effect of the removal from position would not occur if the removal from position becomes null and void or is not an administrative disposition other than the removal from position, and thus, the personnel order of ipso facto retirement shall not be subject to administrative litigation (refer to Supreme Court Decision 76Nu144 delivered on September 28, 197). Accordingly, the court below's decision that dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking nullification of the ipso facto retirement from the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, misapprehension of legal principles, lack of authority to decide or incomplete.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below as to the claim for nullification of the removal from position is reversed, and the part of this case is remanded to the court below, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal (the appeal as to the claim for nullification of the disposition of ipso facto retirement) is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the appeal are assessed against the losing party.

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)