[직권면직처분취소][판례집불게재]
Madden Lives
President of Seoul National University (Attorney Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
March 29, 1983
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant's disposition against the plaintiff on September 30, 1980 shall be revoked ex officio. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
(1) On the other hand, the plaintiff was released from his office for 7 years from June 13, 1972 to September 14, 197 (2) from his office for 197. The plaintiff was released from his office for 7 years from his office for 19.7 years from his office for 3 years from his office for 19.7 years from his office for 17 days to his office for 19.7 years from his office for 17 days from his office for 19.7 years from his office for 3 years from his office for 19.7 years from his office for 17 days from his office for 19.7 years from his office for 3 years from his office for 19.7 years from his office for 19 days from his office for 17 days from his office for 19.7 years from his office for 17 days from his office for 19 days from his office for 17 days from his office for 17 days from his office for 17 days from his office for 9 days from his office for 17 days from his office for 17 days from his office for 1.7 days from his office for 1.7 days
In light of the purport of Article 83-2 (1) of the State Public Officials Act which provides that the plaintiff shall not request a resolution of disciplinary action after two years from the date of the occurrence of the disciplinary cause, the plaintiff argued that the above dismissal disposition made on the ground of dismissal from one's position after the result of three years or more from August 30, 197, the expiration date of the plaintiff's final dismissal period, is unlawful, and that it violates the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy. Thus, the ex officio dismissal system under Article 70 of the State Public Officials Act of 198 intends to secure administrative efficiency by excluding the person who lacks general ability to perform his/her duties from the public office, and its purpose is to establish a discipline system under Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Ex officio dismissal system") with the aim of establishing the discipline system under the above two systems are different from the purpose of the above two systems. Thus, the provisions on the grounds of disciplinary action are not applicable or applicable mutatis mutandis to the ex officio dismissal system, so the plaintiff's ground for removal from his/her office is also justified.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of dismissal is legitimate, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that such disposition is unlawful is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
may 3, 1983
Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Justice)