2010Guhap2632, revocation of revocation of dismissal, etc.

1. Optional00;

2. Voluntary* *

3. Kim 00

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

1. The superintendent of education of Chungcheongnam-do; and

2. The head of the District Education Office of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do; and

[Defendant-Appellant] Han field Co., Ltd.

[Defendant-Appellee] Park Jong-chul, Attorneys Park Byung-chul et al.

May 16, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. Defendant Chungcheongnam-do’s Superintendent of the Office of Education revoked the dismissal disposition against Plaintiff 00 on November 19, 2009.

2. The claims of plaintiffs **, and Kim 00 are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff 00 and the Superintendent of the Office of Education, Chungcheongnam-do, and Defendant Chungcheongnam-do

The Superintendent of the Office of Education shall bear the expenses, and the expenses incurred between the plaintiff Kim-hee and the defendant Chungcheong-do Office of Education shall be borne by the plaintiff Kim Jong-hee, and the expenses incurred between the plaintiff Kim-O and the head of the office of education in the Incheon-do Office of Education in Chungcheongnam-do shall be borne by the plaintiff Kim 00.

The Superintendent of the Office of Education of Chungcheongnam-do and the defendant Chungcheongnam-do shall revoke the first-month disposition of suspension from office against the plaintiff * on November 19, 2009, and the first-month disposition of reduction of salary against the plaintiff Kim 00 on December 30, 2009 by the head of the District Office of Education of Chungcheongnam-do and Chungcheongnam-do shall revoke the first-month disposition of suspension from office against the plaintiff * on November 19, 209.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 15, 198, the director general of the headquarters of the Korean Teachers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "former Teachers' Union") is the person appointed to a middle school on March 15, 198 and transferred to a 00 industrial high school on March 1, 2009 (the full-time officer of a trade union from March 1, 2009) and the director general of the secretariat of the headquarters of the Korean Teachers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "former Teachers' Union"), and the plaintiff * the person appointed to a middle school on March 10, 1983 and transferred to a 00 high school on March 1, 200 (the full-time officer of the headquarters from March 1, 2009 to March 30, 2009). The director general of the headquarters is the full-time officer of a middle school from March 1, 200 to June 10, 2006 and appointed to a 3rd school.

B. The Defendants violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 57 (Duty of Compliance), Article 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity), Article 66 (Prohibition of Collective Action), and Article 3 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Trade Union and Staff Members on November 19, 2009 due to the following disciplinary reasons, and the Superintendent of the Cheong-do Office of Education dismissed the Plaintiff Professor Professor on November 19, 2009. On the same day, the Defendants were subject to a one-month disposition of suspension from office against the Plaintiff ***, and on December 30, 2009, the Superintendent of the Cheong-do Office of Education was subject to a one-month disposition of reduction of one-month punishment against the Plaintiff 00 on December 30, 2009.

The grounds of disciplinary action shall be the same.

1. Plaintiff ProfessorO - On June 18, 2009: The content of criticism of government policies in front of the 00 question.

The Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as the “First Assembly and Demonstration Act”) in June 200 is planned, controlled, and announced as the First Assembly and Demonstration Act;

Management led, and on July 19, 2009: the number of democracy in the previous school that was held in Seoul Square.

The Assembly and Demonstration Declaration was actively engaged in leading the Second Declaration of Teachers (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Declaration").

(c)

2. The assembly and demonstration was actively involved in the assembly and assembly of Plaintiffs * - 1 and 2.

3. Plaintiffs Kim 00 - The First Central Execution Committee at the first office of the Jeon school Cho Jong-dong Headquarters on June 9, 2009

The Assembly was present and passed through the First Declarations, and was involved in the First Declarations.

C. On December 18, 2009, Plaintiff 00, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 1, on January 25, 2010, filed a request for an appeal review with each of the appeals review committees for teachers, but the teachers’ appeals review committee dismissed Plaintiff 00, 100, 200, * * on March 16, 2010, and 5 April 2010, Plaintiff 1, 200.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the disciplinary actions in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

Each assembly and assembly is generally criticized for government policies. This is within the scope of the freedom of expression stipulated in the Constitution, which results in promoting public interest, and it cannot be deemed a collective act that affects public interest, such as neglecting duty of care for purposes contrary to public interest. Therefore, there is no disciplinary penalty against the plaintiffs. 1)

2) improper determination of disciplinary action

Even if there are grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs, each of the instant disciplinary action is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretion.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

(c) Facts of recognition;

1) At the time of the First Declaration, the Assembly was announced on May 28, 2009 under the name of 100 social personnel, and the Assembly was announced on June 9, 2009, and the National Democratic Trade Union Federation of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “National Union Federation of Korea”) took place on June 9, 2009, and there was an assembly or demonstration against government policies and government affairs that were controversial at the time of the first Declaration and demanding government reform.

2) On June 9, 2009, during the attendance of Plaintiff 00 and Kim 00, Jeon Jong-chul held a meeting of the 360 central executive members (the chairman, the chief vice-chairman, the vice-chairman, the head of the policy office, the head of the office of editing, the head of the nationwide city/Do office, and the head of the city/Do branch office, etc., who are the principal executive officers), and it is important to lead to the present quantity in connection with the special election in October 2009 and the scheduled local election in 2010. Under the full explanation, it is important to have a strike in each area, etc., and it is likely that the demand of citizens, labor organizations, etc. will take part in the meeting, etc. as a starting point, based on the resolution of the type of teachers’ participation in the assembly such as the construction of anti-mar electric wires, etc. on the basis of one-month resolution of the 6th National Assembly.

3) In accordance with the above resolution, the former Twitter Central Execution Committee urged teachers to participate in the assembly and demonstration and received a list of Signatories by preparing a draft and signature form for the assembly and demonstration, distributing them to each branch of the previous school and sub-branch and sub-branch and sub-branch, and publicly announcing the guidelines for the execution of the assembly and demonstration on the website. The former Twitter served as a combined list* *.

4) On June 17, 2009, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the “Ministry of Education”) issued to the City/Do Office of Education an official letter to actively guide teachers to actively guide teachers’ participation in the assembly because the former school and its teachers’ participation in the assembly were in violation of the State Public Officials Act’s service regulations against the government.

5) On June 11, 2009: 00, Jeon Jae-gu announced the first door of the Assembly under the name of 16,171 teachers affiliated with the Jeon school as the title "on June 18, 2009, the heavy value of the democratic resistance should not be added to the small value of the democratic dispute," which is located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu.

6) The Assembly’s First Declaration referred to as “the investigation of candlelight demonstration,” “the investigation of the persons related to the PDbook,” “the death of the former President of the labor force force,” “non-regular fire incident,” “non-regular workers,” “the fourth class lecture business,” “inter-Korean relations border,” and “educational crisis,” and “the operation of the present government’s reading and reading station,” and it was influence that the crisis of democracy was caused by the crisis of democracy. The Assembly and Demonstration demanded the president’s history, government’s reform, government’s strict guarantee of freedom of speech, press, assembly, human rights, and conscience, consideration of the socially weak, suspension of the operation of the media law, suspension of large-scale canal enforcement, suspension of school policy, competition, etc., and guarantee of the democratization of school operation.

7) On June 26, 2009, the Department of Education held a meeting of City/Do Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education and accused the full-time officers of the previous school support headquarters and branch, including the chairman of the previous school support headquarters, who led the first meeting, and put a heavy disciplinary measure at the same time, and requested the City/Do Office of Education to issue caution or warning to general sign teachers.

8) On June 28, 2009, during the attendance of the Plaintiff 00 and KimOO, the former Twitter opened a meeting jointly with the public officials on July 19, 2009, and decided to hold the second meeting, and ordered the teachers belonging to the former Twitter to participate in the second assembly with the teachers belonging to the former Twitter in the form of notice on the website, e-mail, sending of official correspondence, etc., and ordered them to participate in the second assembly, and combined a list of Signatories.

19) On July 1, 2009 and on the 15th of the same month, the Department of Education again notified that the acts of the former and the teachers belonging to the former and the latter violate the provisions related to the service of the State Public Officials Act, and instructed the Office of Education of City/Do to actively guide the teachers to refrain from participating in the National Public Officials Act.

10) On July 19, 2009: from around 00 to 14:20 on the same day, Jeon school made a public announcement of the press conference containing the contents such as “I will continue to take a strong action to confirm the legitimacy of the Declaration,” “I will immediately comply with the pressure of the public authority in order to protect the believers of conscience and expression as an educator who teach democracy as an educator, so that I would not interfere with the will of conscience and practice of the teachers who open a democracy with the strong pressure of the government’s free will,” and “I will take place a strong action to withdraw the assembly conference, including the contents such as “I will take place to check the legitimacy of the Declaration,” and “I will read the press conference, 28 teachers affiliated with Jeon school and 634 teachers who declared democracy under the name of 634 teachers.”

11) The main contents of the second assembly and demonstration at the time of the assembly and demonstration are “the freedom of speech and expression to the teachers who are the members of the nation, as natural fundamental rights,” and it cannot be said that “the freedom of speech and expression to the teachers who are the members of the nation,” and “an abuse of unconstitutional public power that destroys the basic order of democracy,” demanding withdrawal of the accusation and disciplinary measure against the teachers of the assembly and demonstration, and “I judge that teachers were fluored by the majority of the people,” stating, “I would have judged that the assembly and demonstration was fluored by the majority of the people,” which is the opinion of the teachers who are political conflict of interests, the legitimacy of the First assembly and demonstration, which is the opinion of the teachers who are the opinion of the teachers of the nation, to respect the people’s voices, and to overcome the present situation in which I would like to return to it.”

12) After the second Declaration was announced on July 19, 2009, 17:00 on the same day from 00 to 17:00 on the same day, Jeon Jong-chul became a member of the Democratic Labor Team, Lee Jong-hee, a member of the Democratic Labor Relations Commission, the representative of the Labor Relations Commission, the chairman of the Labor Relations Union Federation, 1,100 members, and 100 members, etc., who participated in the second Declaration, and were the public official of the Republic of Korea, as the first event of the National Assembly and the public official of the Republic of Korea on July 2, 19, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "public official of the Republic of Korea").

13) The participants of the assembly and assembly were free from the assembly and assembly to the extent of “the assembly and assembly were free from the assembly and assembly’s danger.” The assembly and assembly took place the political arguments of the present government, such as “the assembly and assembly of the Republic of Korea,” “the democratic assembly and assembly of the Republic of Korea,” “the democratic assembly and assembly of the Republic of Korea,” “the democratic assembly and assembly of the Republic of Korea,” “the Republic of Korea,” “the democratic assembly and assembly of the Republic of Korea,” “the political arguments of the debate,” “the democratic assembly of the Republic of Korea,” “the creative Party,” “the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Party,” “the inventive Party,” “the national transportation industry, labor union,” “the thickness, labor organization, etc.,” “the assembly of the Republic of Korea,” and “an alternative organization,” etc.

14) From 00 to 19:00 on the same day, from 17:0 to 00 on the same day, 'the second pan-national conference for democratic recovery and the second pan-national conference for the YTNn YU' to the society of the chairman of the YTN NM. The participants of the assembly withdrawn from the speech, died of the 'finite finite finite finite, the freedom of speech is guaranteed, and the 'fin fin fin fin fin fin, the suspension of the destruction of the environment of the 4th finite finite,

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence 1 to 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination as to grounds for disciplinary action - Determination as to whether the plaintiffs' act violated Article 66(1)(Prohibition of Collective Action) of the State Public Officials Act

The main text of Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall engage in any collective activity for any work other than a public official." The term "collective activity for any work other than a public official" refers to any collective activity that a public official performs for any work other than a public official, not all the collective activities conducted by the public official, but the term "collective activity that affects the public interest, such as neglecting the duty of care for the purpose that goes against the public interest" by comprehensively taking into account media, publishing, meeting, freedom of association, the constitutional principles, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith under the State Public Officials Act, the duty of care, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2960, Apr. 15, 2005, etc.).

(1) The Assembly and Demonstration Act’s 1 and its 10th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 2th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 2th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 2th executive officer’s 2th executive officer’s 1th executive officer’s 2th executive officer’s 20th executive officer’s 2.

B) Next, the Second Declaration does not directly deal with political issues alleged in the First Declaration, but it criticizes the government's measures on the premise of legitimacy of the First Declaration. As such, the purpose of the First Declaration's 2nd Declaration's 10th Declaration's 2nd Declaration's 2nd Declaration's 2nd Declaration's 5th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 2nd Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 10th Declaration's 2nd Declaration's 10th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 6th Declaration's 1.

C) Finally, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff 100’s act related to Plaintiff 1’s Extraordinary also constitutes an act of directly expressing an opposing opinion against other political parties leading major policies in connection with the specific political parties and of clearly expressing political biased or spawnity to the extent that it may infringe on political neutrality, and thus, it constitutes an act of directly expressing the political biased or spawnity to the extent that Plaintiff 200’s act is contrary to this portion as a public official and impeding public duties or impeding the essence of public duties as a public official, and thus, it constitutes an act of neglecting the duty of official duty of official duty of official duty of official duty of official duty of official duty of 160’s 16’s 28’s 16’s 16’s 16’s 16’s 16’s 60’s 16’s 60’s 16’s 160’s 16’s 60’s 16’s 60’s 16’s 6’.

2) Determination on disciplinary action

When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is held at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure as the exercise of the authority has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the measure is unlawful. In order to deem that a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it should be determined that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and clearly unfair when comprehensively considering various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative item to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure. Even if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure, it is against the public interest rules that should exercise the authority to take the disciplinary measure for public interest, or when the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure has lost balance compared with the degree of flight, it violates the principle of proportionality or has violated the principle of equality and discretion 201.

A) As a kind of disciplinary action, ① Article 79 of the State Public Officials Act lists the Plaintiff 00’s officer, dismissal, demotion, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand as a kind of disciplinary action. If a state public official is dismissed by a disciplinary action, not only the public official is deprived of his status, but also the disadvantage that may not be appointed as a public official unless three years have passed since the public official was dismissed under Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act. ② The contents of each assembly report per itself are not unconstitutional or anti-social. ③ Plaintiff 00 was a full-time union and was on leave of absence, and thus, there is no possibility of harm to students or third parties. ④ Whether a public official is permitted to the extent that it conflicts with the political neutrality that public official should retain the freedom of expression as a member of the nation, and thus, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s act of giving and receiving disciplinary punishment and disciplinary action as a whole can be acknowledged as one of the causes for disciplinary action and disciplinary actions as a whole.

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the assembly and demonstration was not determined, the dismissal disposition, which deprived of the status of a public official on the basis of the leading and participating reasons, is unlawful as it goes beyond the bounds of the discretionary power that has been entrusted to the person having authority over disciplinary action, as it considerably loses validity

B) In full view of various circumstances such as the fact that the above plaintiffs, who are public officials, who are required to be political neutrality by the Constitution, violated positive political activities in violation of the positive law, and served as the executive officers of the previous school, and that the act of the above plaintiffs is not likely to adversely affect the public official's job fairness and the trust of the people, it cannot be deemed that each disciplinary action against the above plaintiffs is objectively unreasonable and unreasonable, and thus, it cannot be deemed that they exceeded or abused the scope of disciplinary discretion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by plaintiff 00 is accepted on the ground of its reason, and the plaintiff **, Kim 00 is dismissed on the ground of its reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in charge of fishing

Judges Jeon Jae-il

Judges Lee Jae-sung

1) The Plaintiffs are arguing only that the Defendants violated the prohibition of collective action among the grounds cited as the grounds of the instant disciplinary action, and the remainder.

There is no argument about the duty of good faith, duty of obey, duty of maintenance of dignity, and violation of prohibition of political activities.

Site of separate sheet

Relevant statutes

/ The State Public Officials Act

Article 33 (Grounds for Disqualification)

No person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be appointed as a public official:

8. A person who was dismissed by a disciplinary action, and for whom three years have not passed thereafter.

Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith)

All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, and perform faithfully their duties.

Article 57 (Duty to Comply with)

A public official shall obey any official order of his/her superior in performing his/her duties.

Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity)

No public official shall commit any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is for his/her duties.

Article 66 (Prohibition of Collective Action)

(1) No public official shall engage in any collective activity for any labor campaign, or activities other than public services: Provided, That in fact, he/she shall not engage in such collective activity

Except for public officials who are engaged in labor.

Article 78 (Grounds for Discipline)

(1) If a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall request a resolution on disciplinary action and the result of disciplinary action:

shall be subject to a disciplinary action.

1. Where he/she violates this Act or any order issued under this Act;

2. Any duty in the course of performing his duties (including such duty as imposed on the status of public officials in other Acts and subordinate statutes) or any position;

when he neglected to do so;

3. Where he commits an act detrimental to his prestige or dignity, regardless of a connection with his duties.

Article 79 (Categories of Discipline)

Disciplinary action shall be classified into removal, dismissal, demotion, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand.

/ Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers’ Unions

Article 3 (Prohibition of Political Activities)

No teacher's trade union (hereinafter referred to as a "trade union") shall engage in any political activity.