Whether the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Act apply to appeal procedures for local public officials subject to other unfavorable measures (affirmative)

Article 42(1), Article 18(3) and (6), Article 17(1) and (5) of the Administrative Appeals Act, which provides for matters not provided for in the Local Public Officials Act, shall apply to procedures for appeal by the local public officials against whom disciplinary action or other unfavorable measures are taken, as prescribed by the Local Public Officials Act.

Articles 43(2), 42(1), 18(3), 18(6), 17(1) and 17(5) of the Administrative Appeals Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Seogpo City

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Gu116 delivered on January 24, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 42(1), Article 18(3) and (6), Article 17(1) and (5) of the Administrative Appeals Act, which provides for matters not provided for in the Local Public Officials Act with respect to procedures for dissatisfaction of the local public officials subject to disciplinary action or other unfavorable disposition, shall also apply to the procedures for dissatisfaction of the local public officials subject to disciplinary action or other unfavorable disposition.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the procedure of the previous trial of this case, which the plaintiff completed, is legitimate in light of the provisions of Articles 42, 18, and 17 of the Administrative Judgment Act, is just and there is no error of law such as a misapprehension of legal principles.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that although the plaintiff was in the process of the recovery surgery from the post organs, it is not possible to use the post organs, it is confirmed that the plaintiff is free from a day-to day-day meeting using the current artificial organs (electric organs), and that such circumstance alone does not obstruct the plaintiff from performing his duties for more than one year due to the physical and mental disorder as stipulated in Article 62 (1) 1 of the Local Public Officials Act which provides the reason for ex officio dismissal, but it cannot be viewed as a case where he is unable to perform his duties even after the leave period under Article 62 (1) 4 of the Local Public Officials Act is terminated, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)