The defendant's choice to be dismissed by disciplinary action against the plaintiff is illegal beyond the scope of discretion under the circumstances of the waiting party on duty or the principle of fairness.

The defendant's choice to be dismissed by disciplinary action against the plaintiff is illegal beyond the scope of discretion under the circumstances of the waiting party on duty or the principle of fairness.

Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 79 of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Busan City Mayor

Daegu High Court Decision 72Gu48 delivered on September 27, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff's act of taking disciplinary action against the plaintiff was unlawful in light of all the circumstances such as the plaintiff's 25 minutes while working on duty at the Young-gu Office in Busan Metropolitan City, and the defendant's act of taking the same 25 minutes in the citizen's division, and the fact that the plaintiff did not take money at the citizen's division, and it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) and (3) of the State Public Officials Act, even if this constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) and (3) of the State Public Officials Act, the plaintiff is not on duty working hours but on duty and 25 minutes in the atmosphere, and 3 (local public officials) who performed chemical play together with the plaintiff were decided to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff at the Busan City Urban Appeals Commission, and therefore, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the type of disciplinary action.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)