This case where a reprimand disposition against the customs officer who has performed the duties assigned to the instructions of the Commissioner of the Tax Office is justified;

The so-called "business process that is carried out by a member exclusively in charge of the assessment of customs value without being informed of the instructions of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service" is a public official in violation of the duty to faithfully perform his/her duties, which constitutes a disciplinary cause under Article 78 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act.

Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Head of Ulsan Customs Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu292 delivered on July 16, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service, based on Article 9-7 of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 3606 of Dec. 9, 1983), which was in force at the time as appraisal No. 21 December 21, 1983, 1275-21-4389, issued an instruction and public notice to suspend the evaluation of the transaction price and apply 93,600N per kilogram, among the imported goods, until the import declaration of Jan. 4, 1984 was issued separately from the import declaration of Dec. 4, 1984, each customs office under the instruction and public notice to ensure that the plaintiff, working at the Busan Customs Office's office, did not review the above instruction and public notice given by the head of the Busan Customs office, and found that the plaintiff's above fact-finding was not erroneous in the determination of the standard import price of No. 200 kilograms of the imported goods at the time, and it did not apply the above instruction and public notice of No. 200 3.

In addition, if the facts are as above, even if the plaintiff's ex post facto customs collection measures such as the plaintiff's theory are considered, the so-called "work process that the plaintiff did not know about the instructions of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service and did not violate the duty to perform his duties faithfully. In addition, if the plaintiff knew that the order to suspend the evaluation was withdrawn, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's failure to grasp the contents of the order was the plaintiff's unfaithful worker's wrong worker's wrong worker's duty, and even if the plaintiff's order to suspend the evaluation was revoked as the plaintiff's lawsuit, such circumstance cannot be deemed as an illegal duty order. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's act of performing the plaintiff's above unfaithful act constitutes a ground for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act is just and there is no error in law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the ground for disciplinary action under the State Public Officials Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)