beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.17 2016누50909

제명의결처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of expulsion against the Plaintiff on April 17, 2015 is revoked.

3...

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as follows: "A. The plaintiff was selected as a member of the 6th local council, which was implemented on June 4, 2014, and performed parliamentary activities as a representative member of the J party, which was a negotiating party, as a representative member of the J party, at B City Council at the election of members of the 6th local council, which was implemented on June 4, 2014," and "B. the defendant held a 203 extraordinary session from March 5, 2015 to March 19, 2015," and "The defendant held the 203 extraordinary session from March 5, 2015 to March 19, 2015." Thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the change to "the defendant is in office as a member of the council of the J Party

The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case and the reasoning for the court's explanation as to this part is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

- The portion to be modified or added - the five-day period from the date of occurrence of the first instance judgment "after the lapse of five days from the date of occurrence" shall be changed to "after the lapse of five days from the date of occurrence or the date of occurrence of a person to be disciplined."

- Forms 5 through 18 of the first instance judgment are modified as follows.

Article 85 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "(11) grounds for disposition: The Plaintiff borrowed approximately KRW 10 million due to lack of school expenses from L, which was a graduate school member at the end of the end of the end of 2012, but the Defendant reported the above monetary transactions to the Speaker, and Article 85 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "the local council may punish a member of the local council by resolution if he/she violates this Act or any municipal ordinances and rules." The act subject to disciplinary action against the local council member is limited to "an act violating the Local Autonomy Act or any municipal ordinances and rules," and Articles 8 and