On November 11, 1983, the original judgment: (a) the Plaintiff, working as the Director General of the resale Office, was subject to disciplinary dismissal; (b) on the 15th of the same month, the notice of personnel order was delivered by mail to the Plaintiff’s address and received by the Nonparty, who is the Plaintiff’s wife; (c) on the ground that it is difficult for the Nonparty to have known of the fact that the Plaintiff was dismissed, it was recognized that the Nonparty did not deliver the above notice to the Plaintiff, which was confined in the Seoul Detention Office, and then disposed of without being delivered to the Plaintiff; and (d) the removal disposition against the public official was taken by the other party’s declaration of intent, and the disposition becomes effective only if the other party’s declaration of intention reaches. In this case, the Defendant issued a personnel notice to the Plaintiff with knowledge of the fact that the Plaintiff was dismissed, and the Nonparty, who was the Plaintiff’s wife, did not deliver the said notice to the Plaintiff, and thus, rejected the removal disposition in this case.

However, even if there is an administrative disposition against a public official, the expression of intention of the administrative disposition is effective only when the other party reaches the other party, and it is sufficient that the other party reaches the other party's actual quantity and that the other party is in a situation where the other party is able to keep in good condition (see Supreme Court Decision 75Nu63, Jun. 8, 1976). Thus, as in this case, as in this case, as long as the plaintiff's wife resided in the plaintiff's domicile and received a personnel order notice, the plaintiff was under the custody house at the time, and the defendant was also aware of the same fact, and even if the plaintiff's wife did not deliver the above notice to the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff's wife did not dispose of it without delivering it to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's wife was in a situation where the plaintiff's wife could keep in good condition at the time of receiving the above notice. Thus, the expression of intention of the removal against the plaintiff at that time

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the removal disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have reached the plaintiff, and thus, was null and void. It is obvious that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the court below's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)