Whether a member dismissal disposition is subject to administrative litigation

If the dismissal of a member is illegal against his/her will, he/she may seek the cancellation of the dismissal.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 60 of the Local Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Any disposition of dismissal taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on February 4, 1967 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. First, the defendant is the main defense of safety, and the dismissal disposition of this case, the plaintiff's cancellation of which is made, is against the plaintiff's will and is not against the plaintiff's objection against the removal disposition of a member. Therefore, the defendant's safety defense cannot be deemed to be unlawful since the plaintiff's action seeking the cancellation of the disposition is not appropriate, and it is against the plaintiff's will, even if it is against the plaintiff's own will. In this case, according to the plaintiff's assertion as the cause of the claim, the dismissal disposition of this case is a form of a member dismissal, but it is illegal because it is against the plaintiff's will, therefore, it is against the plaintiff's actual correction. Thus, the defendant's safety defense is groundless.

2. The followings shall be examined:

The fact that the defendant, as a local tax assistant, was employed by the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office for the collection of Yeongdeungpo-gu and the second chapter, was dismissed by the plaintiff on February 4, 1967 has no dispute between the parties.

However, since the plaintiff prepared and submitted the above resignation of the plaintiff, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff's will is unlawful, the defendant's 2, 3, and 4 (except for the part which is not trusted in the future) were considered as witness's 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the whole purport of the plaintiff's newspaper and pleading, it is hard for the plaintiff to accept the above dismissal disposition again from the above 20th clerk to the above 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 5th clerk's 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 20th clerk's 6th clerk's 20th clerk's 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 20th clerk's 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 10th clerk's 6th clerk's 1.

Therefore, even though the above private employee prepared by the plaintiff was not forced by an investigative agency against the plaintiff's will, the defendant, without going through the head of the plaintiff's workplace, directly transferred by the investigative agency through the Central Control Committee, without going through the head of the plaintiff's workplace, shall be deemed to be dismissed by mistake that the resignation member was prepared and submitted according to the plaintiff's true will and thus, it shall not be dismissed against the plaintiff's will unless it is sentenced to punishment, disciplinary action or other grounds stipulated in this Act.

(1) Paragraph 1). A public official shall not be forced against his will to resign (Paragraph 2) and thus guaranteeing the status of a public official by law. Thus, the public official shall accept resignations prepared and submitted by coercion against his will against his will and the dismissal is clearly contrary to the above Article, and thus, the defendant's dismissal disposition cannot be revoked as it is illegal.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the dismissal disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Ha-ju (Presiding Judge)