[감봉처분취소청구사건][고집1971특,397]
Whether there is a benefit to seek correction of a disciplinary action even after the period of discipline expires and the execution of the disciplinary action is terminated.
According to Article 80(5) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 35 of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials, a person subject to a disciplinary action shall be subject to restrictions on appointment for a certain period of time even after the execution is completed, and so it is not possible to dispute as an administrative litigation to remove such disadvantage. Therefore, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek correction of the disciplinary action, regardless of the expiration of the period of
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 80 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 35 of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials
Plaintiff
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor
The defendant's disciplinary action of salary reduction for three months against the plaintiff as of October 21, 1970 shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The Plaintiff’s Attorney sought a judgment, such as the Disposition No. 1.
According to each statement of Gap evidence 6-5 and 6 (Report and Notification) which was submitted on June 14, 1969 by the non-party 2, the defendant was subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff as of October 21, 1970 on the ground that the plaintiff was subject to the criticism of the residents by giving a land category change to the site on June 23, 1969, although the head of the Gu did not attach a letter of permission to abolish the road in the application while receiving an application seeking a land classification change of 37 square meters among 83 square meters of 251-5 private roads of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. 251, which were owned by the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, as of June 14, 1969.
However, as the main safety claim, the defendant's decision to attach the plaintiff to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City General Disciplinary Committee (1) was made on the ground that the defendant received the defendant's request for the reduction of salary for three months at the appeals review committee, and as to such disciplinary action, the plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit or a request for review, and as to such disciplinary action, the plaintiff who is to file a lawsuit immediately pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act has filed a lawsuit with the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and this lawsuit is not unlawful. (2) In the case of the disciplinary action, the plaintiff has no interest in filing a lawsuit to seek the cancellation of the disposition, because the period for filing the lawsuit has already passed three months and the execution has been completed.
As to the above (1) Item 1-2 (Determination, Notification and Correction), No. 2 (Notice of Disciplinary Action), No. 4 (Return of Request), and No. 8 (Evidence) of the above-mentioned No. 1-2 (No. 1-2). According to the above-mentioned No. 1-2 (No. 7), the plaintiff's request was made to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City General Disciplinary Committee for a resolution of disciplinary action for 3 months after considering the whole purport of the party's arguments. Since the above-mentioned No. 1-2 (No. 1-2)-1-2 (No. 7)-2 (No. 9-2)-2 (No. 1-6)-2-1-2 (No. 1-6)-2)-2-1-2 (No. 1-2)-2)-2-1-3 (No. 1-2)-2)-2)-1-3 (No. 3-1-2)-2)-2)-1-3-3 (no.
As such, the above main defense of the defendant is all groundless.
However, the plaintiff filed an application with the above non-party company on June 14, 1969, and the cadastral office is a technical office that is handled by the land owner's report or by the government's investigation in order to reflect the land category, boundary, and the actual state of the land in the public book as it is, and it is not subject to restrictions in dealing with cadastral affairs according to what restrictions or burdens are imposed on the land under the Administrative Control Act and regulations. In addition, the private road at issue in this case is not subject to the Road Act nor a road under Article 2 (15) of the Building Act, and it is not necessary to attach the permission of the head of the Gu to the application because the road is not a road subject to the Road Act, nor a road under Article 2 (15) of the Building Act, and therefore, it is not necessary to attach the permission of the head of the Gu to the application. Accordingly,
Therefore, this paper will examine this.
According to the above evidence Nos. 1-2 and 6-6 of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 and 6-6 of the above evidence Nos. 5 (Investigation Report), 6-4 of the above evidence Nos. 6-4 (After-report on Land Inspection), and 6-7 ( Map) of the above evidence No. 7 of the above evidence, the application filed by the above non-party company to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office for land category conversion of land category to the site on Jun. 14, 1969 was in the name of the application form for land category conversion, but this is in the nature of the taxable object declaration. Although the above application form was not designated as a road pursuant to Article 2-15 of the Building Act, it can be acknowledged that the above part of the land was actually constructed on the same land, but it is not necessary to determine whether the above application form was accompanied by the permission of the head of the Gu, but it is not required to investigate whether the building is a building with no permission under paragraph (1) of the above article No. 1 and No. 27 of the building without permission.
If it is true that the plaintiff's misconduct in relation to the above (b) facts is recognized, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff intentionally committed such misconduct, in particular, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff for three months of his salary reduction is beyond the scope of the disciplinary authority.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the objection is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the defendant who has lost.
Judges Sick-su (Presiding Judge)