A. The meaning of Article 2(1) of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations requires a so-called head of agency to make a resolution on disciplinary action

B. Whether a dismissal by disciplinary action is included in the dismissal under Article 17(2)1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Rules (negative)

C. Validity of demands for resolution on disciplinary action by internal delegation (negative)

A. According to Article 2(1) of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the head of a affiliated agency with which a personnel committee is established shall request a disciplinary resolution to the personnel committee by specifying the type of disciplinary action against public officials of Grade VI or lower. However, it is reasonable to interpret Article 6(2) of the Local Public Officials Act as a provision concerning the procedure to exercise the authority to request a disciplinary resolution, which is part of the authority of disciplinary action, if the head of a local government

B. While the dismissal of a public official of class 3 or below and a public official of class 3 or below in Article 17(2)1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Management Rules (amended by the Rules No. 1971 of Apr. 27, 1982) are internal delegation to the head of the Gu, it is deemed that the dismissal is not a dismissal by a disciplinary action

C. The right to appoint public officials of Grade VI or lower under Article 2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules on Delegation is internal delegation to the head of the Gu, and even if the right to appoint is included in disciplinary action, if the delegation is only internal delegation, a request for disciplinary action by the head of the Gu shall be made by an unincorporated institution and shall be void

A. Article 2(1) of the Regulations on Disciplinary Action and Appeal against Local Public Officials, Article 6(2) of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 17 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Rules (amended by Rule 1971 of Apr. 24, 1982), Article 6(2) of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules on Entrustment of Administrative Affairs (Ordinance 1075 of Sep. 1, 1970), Article 6(2) of the Local Public Officials Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu70 delivered on November 24, 1981 (Da) 82Nu62 delivered on July 27, 1982

Plaintiff

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu85 delivered on February 15, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 6(1) and (2) of the Local Public Officials Act and Article 8(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act, the head of a local government has the authority to take disciplinary action against public officials under his/her jurisdiction and may delegate it to the head of the agency under his/her jurisdiction as prescribed by the Local Public Officials Act, and the authority to take disciplinary action includes the authority to request disciplinary action to the competent personnel committee under his/her jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Local Public Officials Disciplinary Action and Appeal Regulations, and the head of an agency under his/her jurisdiction pursuant to the proviso of Article 7(1) of the Local Public Officials Act is deemed to have a public official of Grade 4(6)(6)(6)(6)(1)(6(1)(2)(2)(2)(i.e., when a public official of Grade 4(6)(6) or below is deemed to have a reason falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 69(1) of the Local Public Officials Act. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the head of a local government is dismissed under Article 17(2)(18).

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the defendant legally did not delegate his right to request a disciplinary decision to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu under Article 6 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act, and that the disciplinary action of this case against the plaintiff by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office is unlawful. The above measure is just in light of the purport of the above provision, and it cannot be found that there is any error in the misapprehension of legal principles or lack of reason as to delegation of authority, and if there is no factual basis, it is true that the right to appoint public officials belonging to the same class as the plaintiff is internal delegated to the head of the Gu pursuant to Article 2 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Rules on Delegation of Administrative Affairs, and even if the disciplinary action is included among the power to appoint public officials, as long as the delegation is only an internal delegation, the request for the disciplinary decision of this case that the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office requested a disciplinary decision under his own name shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu62, Jul. 27, 1982).

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)