[직위해제등처분취소청구사건][고집1982(특별편),103]
Receipt of money and valuables irrelevant to duties and disciplinary reasons for public officials;
Since the receipt of money and valuables by a public official without relation to his/her duties cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of good faith and dignity maintenance of public officials, it does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action under each subparagraph of Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act
Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 61(1) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act
Plaintiff
Chairman of the General Affairs Appeal Board
The removal of the plaintiff from office by the President as of May 13, 1978 shall be revoked.
All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
On November 7, 1961, the plaintiff was appointed to the head of the Gu of Busan Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City (title omitted), and served as a public official of Grade II or III in the market (title omitted) from October 28, 1976 to April 7, 1978; and according to the decision of the Central Disciplinary Committee of April 20, 1978, the fact that the President issued the disposition of this case as stated in the order of May 13, 1978 by the President is not a dispute between the parties concerned.
The defendant litigation performer received KRW 1,00,00,00 from the plaintiff's (name omitted) market office around December 197, 197, at the end of the market (name omitted) market office of the plaintiff, which is the plaintiff's (name omitted) market to purchase approximately KRW 230,00,000 of the water supply equipment of the above company's products at the market price of the same year (name omitted) at the end of the same year. This is in violation of the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of integrity under Article 61 (1) of the same Act, and the duty of maintenance of dignity under Article 63 of the same Act, so long as the disposition of this case falls under the grounds for disciplinary action under each subparagraph of Article 78 (1) of the same Act, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the above non-party 1,000,000 won and the parties concerned at the above date and place.
Furthermore, as to whether the Plaintiff received 1,00,00 won or more from the above 0-party 1 company's above 0-party 1 company's name and 0-party 2's testimony as to whether the above 0-party 1 company's above 0-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's above 0-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 4 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 4 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 4 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 7 company's non-party 1 company's non-party 1's non-party 1 company's non-party 1 company'
If the facts are the same as above, it does not seem that the plaintiff violated the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of integrity under Article 61 (1) of the same Act, and the duty of maintenance of dignity under Article 63 of the same Act.
Thus, under the premise that the plaintiff violated his duties under Articles 56, 61(1), and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, the disposition of removal of this case by the President according to the resolution of the Central Disciplinary Committee under the premise that the plaintiff violated his duties under Articles 56, 61(1), and 63 of the State Public Officials Act is unlawful and thus cannot be revoked. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified,
Judges Kim Yong-han (Presiding Justice)