[면직처분취소][집19(3)행,009]
In accordance with Article 76 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, if a request for examination is not made to the appeals review committee within 30 days from the date on which he/she becomes aware of such disposition pursuant to Article 73-2 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act, he/she cannot do so again unless he/she has a reason such as invalidation, etc., and it cannot be asserted in a lawsuit against the disposition of dismissal based on the above disposition of removal from the position.
In accordance with Article 76 (1) of the State Public Officials Act with respect to a disposition of dismissal from a position under Article 73-2 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act, if the appeals review committee fails to make a request for review within 30 days from the date on which he/she becomes aware of such disposition, he/she shall not re-arctate it unless there is any reason such as the invalidation, etc., and even in litigation against an action of dismissal under the premise of the above disposition
Articles 73-2 and 76 of the State Public Officials Act
Plaintiff
Minister of Government Administration
Seoul High Court Decision 69Gu180 delivered on June 1, 1971
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s agent are as follows:
(1) According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below decided that the plaintiff was unable to receive the above notice of removal from position from position on June 8, 1966 by the head of the Sungdong Industrial High School, a leader of the Dong school's general affairs division, and sent the plaintiff's house to Dong school's mother living together with the plaintiff's house on June 14, 196, and that the plaintiff had not received the above notice of removal from position on the 20th day of the month after the year, as the plaintiff had accepted the above notice of removal from position from position from his house and went to school, the plaintiff did not receive the above notice of removal from position from his school on June 20, 196, and even if the plaintiff did not receive it, the plaintiff had received the above notice of removal from position from his school on June 20, 196, and therefore, the plaintiff had not received the above notice of removal from position from his school on the premise that the plaintiff had not received the above notice of removal from position from his school.
(2) If a disposition of removal from a position was taken by a public official under Article 73-2 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act for reasons of non-disqualification under Article 73-2 (3) of the same Act, even if there is an illegal cause of removal from a position without a request to the appeals review committee for review within 30 days from the date on which he knows that such disposition was taken pursuant to Article 76 (1) of the same Act, such illegal act does not constitute a ground of removal from a position again. Therefore, if a disposition of removal from a position is made under Article 73-2 (2) and (3) of the same Act on the premise that such disposition of removal from a position is made, it is not possible to bring an objection against it in a dispute over the subsequent disposition of removal from a position. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below based on such opinion is just and there is no ground for criticism against the original judgment based on the opinion of the contrary.
Therefore, the appeal on this case is without merit, 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 on the bench.
Supreme Court Judge Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) and Kim Young-chul Ho-ho