[파면처분취소][공1984.7.15.(732),1132]
(a) The validity of the removal disposition against a police officer in continuous service for 17 years who did not report his misconduct to his superior officer due to his circumstances;
B. Court's duty of ex officio investigation on the facts not presented in the lawsuit
A. The plaintiff, as a traffic guide, directed the competent personnel to issue a Sticker, and after the occurrence of a traffic accident in violation of the laws and regulations of this case, the plaintiff was present at the site of another traffic accident, and the next day was a legal holiday, and the result of the result of the continuous driving case discovered by leaving the scene of the accident due to the inconvenience of body, and the plaintiff returned the money received from the driver of the speed scam by the driver of the speed scam to check the result of the results of the continuous driving case. In addition, considering the fact that the plaintiff was working for 5 years or more in the guest scam and did not report the fact of the misconduct to the commercial company, it is recognized that the plaintiff was dismissed as a disciplinary action against the plaintiff as a disciplinary action against the above supervisory attitude for 17 years or police officers.
B. A court is entitled to ex officio in an administrative litigation but does not have the duty to ex officio investigate the facts not appeared in the litigation because the parties did not assert.
A. Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 27 of the Police Officers Act; Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Plaintiff
Do Governor of Gyeongnam-do
Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu299 delivered on October 11, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Reviewing the record, the judgment of the court below is justified in the measures that the plaintiff discovered a traffic offense vehicle and ordered the assistant supervisor to process the vehicle, but did not confirm the result, and that the assistant supervisor received the money but did not report it to the commercial company, but it is not recognized that the plaintiff used the misconduct of the assistant supervisor or received the money by the plaintiff, and it is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing or in the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.
2. In addition, the judgment of the court below concluded that the disposition of this case, which was removed as a disciplinary action against the above supervisory attitude, is a deviation from discretionary authority, considering the fact that the plaintiff did not report the misconduct to the commercial sector for 17 years, considering the fact that the plaintiff did not report it to the commercial sector as the situation where the Dobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbs had been directed to the affiliated members, and the plaintiff was dispatched to the site due to other traffic accidents after the detection of the violation of the above laws and regulations, and the next day is a legal holiday, and the plaintiff was unable to confirm the result of the treatment, and the plaintiff was unable to return the amount received by the member of the society, which was due to the reason that the plaintiff's failure to report it was made for 5 years or more at the guest's place.
3. Of the theory of lawsuit, the fact that the plaintiff was subject to a prior disciplinary measure for reprimand is not only the fact that the fact-finding court did not assert, but also the court does not have the duty to ex officio investigate the fact that the plaintiff did not appear in the litigation even after ex officio in the administrative litigation. Therefore, the theory of lawsuit on this point cannot be adopted, and the precedent of the party member at the time of lawsuit is not
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)