The case holding that the resolution of expulsion of a member of the Gu Council was unlawful beyond the scope of discretion;

The case holding that the resolution of expulsion of a member of the Gu Council is unlawful beyond the scope of discretionary power, on the grounds that the statement made by a member of the Council at the plenary session violates the duty to maintain dignity as a member and the duty to prohibit an insulting statement to others, and thus constitutes a disciplinary cause as stipulated in Article 78 of the Local Autonomy Act, but it can be abused as a means to attract the minority opposing opinions if the member easily accepts the expulsion disposition with the contents of the statement made at the Council, and the disciplinary action is also listed in the types of warning and apology at an open meeting, suspension of attendance for not more than 30 days, etc.

Articles 78 and 80 of the Local Autonomy Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Busan, Attorney Choi Sung-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Metropolitan Council (Law Firm International Law, Attorney Park Jong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 19, 2005

1. The defendant's disposition of expulsion against the plaintiff on December 13, 2004 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. The disposition under paragraph 1 shall cease to be effective until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry of Gap evidence 6-2 and Gap evidence 9.

A. On June 13, 2002, the Plaintiff was elected as the Gu Council member of the Busan Northern District Council at the third national election of Dong-si.

B. On December 13, 2004, the Defendant Council opened a plenary session on December 13, 2004, passed a resolution on a disciplinary proposal ordering the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff had damaged the honor of the club members at the regular meeting of the Defendant Council held on December 1, 2004, and made a statement to see the status of the Defendant Council, and notified the Plaintiff thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s remarks

(A) Some members of the Special Committee on Audit and Inspection of Administrative Affairs of the Defendant Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Committee on Audit and Inspection”) were unfairly obstructed by the Plaintiff’s request for the submission of data reasonably required for the administrative affairs belonging to the Defendant Council.

(B) On the other hand, members of the Defendant Council, including Nonparty 1, who were members of the Defendant Council, were most of the members of the region, such as most of the members of the Defendant Council, and the Plaintiff is a member of the environmental movement association, who is relatively minority in the Defendant Council. The above Nonparty 1 member thought that he did not search the Plaintiff on the wind that the Plaintiff’s opinion was reached whenever he was frequent in the parliamentary activities of the Plaintiff, and that he made verbal abuse to the Plaintiff and fladbbbbb the fal.

(C) As such, the Plaintiff’s statement in this case was made in order to create a trusted parliamentary climate by pointing out other members’ unfair submission of materials and inappropriate behavior during the same period, but it was not to insult the members of the Dong Fee or to impair the honor of the Defendant Council.

(2) Violations of disposition

In light of the above circumstances and the purpose of the Plaintiff’s speech, there is no ground for disciplinary action at all, or even if there are grounds for disciplinary action, the expulsion resolution to deprive the Plaintiff of his status as a member of the National Assembly is deemed to be unlawful as it goes against the discretion of the Defendant Council due to excessive

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

In addition to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged in addition to the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7-1, 2, 8, 1, 5 through 10, 13-1, 2, 15, 16 and the testimony of Non-Party No. 2 of the witness.

(1) The defendant Council consisting of 12 council members elected in the above local election implemented on June 13, 2002, and their terms of office from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006. The plaintiff is a council member.

(2) The Defendant Council conducted an administrative audit of the North-gu Busan Metropolitan City for seven days from February 2 to December 8 of each year. To this end, from October 29, 2004 to November 9, 2004, approved a plan for administrative affairs audit at the 121st extraordinary session of the Republic of Korea from October 29, 2004, and confirmed all the plan for the submission of data to the audit agency. However, on November 9, 2009, the date when the above audit plan was finalized, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant Council to submit all data and relevant evidential documents related to the Defendant Council’s budget, including expenses for common operation of the Defendant Council, expenses for business operation of the institution, and expenses for business operation of the institution, and requested the Nonparty 3, the Speaker of the Defendant Council, the chairperson of the Defendant Council, and the said general meeting of delegates to submit data again on November 23, 2004.

However, the plaintiff and nine members, including the non-party 2 Vice-Speaker, opened a meeting and decided not to submit the above data to the Council affairs division, and notified that the administrative affairs division cannot submit the data according to the above decision.

(3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff was a non-party 1 member of the Defendant Council and a member of the Defendant Council several times, and in particular, at the fifth session of the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts of the Second Regular Session held on December 17, 2003, the Plaintiff demanded the non-party 1 member who made a statement as the president at the time of the fifth session of the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts of the Second Regular Session to leave, and was in dispute, and

(4) On December 1, 2004, the Plaintiff made the following remarks through five minutes of free speech at the first regular session of the Defendant Council in 2004 at the first regular session of the Defendant Council (hereinafter “instant remarks”).

In order to verify the propriety of the budget execution with respect to the Assembly, this member demands that ..... (name omitted of the member 1) submit common business promotion expenses, etc. to the Council's administrative affairs and the Council's office. (name omitted of the member ...) ... (name omitted of the member 1) ..... ... ... .. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ..., the plaintiff attempted to kill the member's ‘Walth of the member (name omitted of the member 1)',

"After completion of the plenary session, nine members including Nonggging and Nonging the National Assembly member, who were retired from the National Assembly, were not a meeting of Nonging and Nonging the former president without the chairperson, but a urgent meeting that does not have the rules and principles of meeting, thereby preventing the Assembly member from submitting data requested to the office of the Council. This decision was directed to the affairs of the Council. However, if one is not a person who is so pinned, but a person who is not a person who is so pindly pinned, and a person who is not a person who is a findly pind, is a find find

At the time of "Wal-Walk' (name omitted of No. 1) moving against one's will, "Wal-Walk's own will" (name omitted) ; Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop Don's Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop hn's hum n't n't n't n't n't n't n't n't n't, h't n't n't n't n't n't n? One n't n't n't n't n't n't n't n't n't n'

"The Vice-Speaker of the Republic of Korea (name omitted of the Republic of Korea 3) stated that the opinion of the Vice-Speaker is not good for the friendly won since she takes the place of her Vice-Speaker, whether it is well public booked? Whether it is well-written? Whether it is well-founded for the parliamentary activities to be present? It is based on the higher law that is called the Ordinance? As it is based on the higher law, it is necessary to say that the bill is a bill, thereby passing through several changes, rejection, or original bills, and the budget deliberation is also conducted several times, and it is not necessary to gather a large range of opinions of the original members?"

"In the order of the highest order that there is a lack of parliamentary activity ability in the election of the latter half of the North Korean Council, including the former president, and that there is a lack of parliamentary career until now, the first half of the first half of the year, which is not seen only once but only once an inquiry about the Gu affairs so far, the first half of the year, who is seated in a higher part, and is hospitalized in the new Vice-Speaker and the university hospital, shall be elected by selecting the chairman

(5) During the Plaintiff’s above speaking, Nonparty 4’s member’s above speaking made a statement to the effect that “the order of a specific member is different.” The Speaker urged the Plaintiff to pay attention and declared the meeting, but the Plaintiff continued to make the above statement at the opening of the meeting. After the regular meeting, the Plaintiff asserted that it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff to refuse to submit the above materials, and that the remaining members of the Gu would interfere with the submission of the above materials, arguing that it would be unreasonable for the Plaintiff to refuse to submit the above materials.

(6) On December 4, 2004, 7 members, including Nonparty 5, were required to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff, through the above remarks, damaged the honor of the members of the Dong, and caused the Plaintiff to lose the status of the Defendant Council due to the sound that the council's right to vote was not held as the leader of the council, etc., and the Defendant Council constituted a Special Committee on Qualifications for Disciplinary Action (hereinafter referred to as "Special Committee on Disciplinary Action") with 10 members and examined the above request for disciplinary action.

On December 11, 2004, the disciplinary privilege was provided to the Plaintiff with an opportunity to vindicate, but the Plaintiff argued to the effect that the Plaintiff would not feel the value of the vindication and that the above disciplinary privilege itself does not go against. The disciplinary privilege was decided to impose the Plaintiff’s expulsion by making each vote asking the type of disciplinary action, and the Plaintiff’s expulsion was decided upon by seven affirmative votes among eight persons present through the pros and cons voting, and then the proposal for expulsion against the Plaintiff was presented to the plenary session.

On December 13, 2004, the defendant Congress reported the result of the resolution of the above special disciplinary measure at the plenary session at the third plenary session held on December 13, 2004, and again resolved on the above proposal with the consent of all eight persons present at the voting.

(7) On January 3, 2005, the Defendant Council disclosed the details of business promotion expenses and evidential documents of 2003, 2004 from among the above materials requested by the Plaintiff at the request of a civic organization.

(d) Markets:

(1) Whether it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action

(A) The Local Autonomy Act, a member of the local council shall maintain his/her dignity as a member of the local council (Article 34(2) of the same Act), and shall not insult others or speak about others’ private lives at the plenary session or in the committees (Article 75(1)). If a member violates the provisions of this Act, he/she may be subject to disciplinary action (Article 78) by resolution.

(B) According to the above facts, it is recognized that the plaintiff made a statement that criticizes his behavior and character while ordering a specific member at the plenary session of the defendant council, and took place with respect to the decision of other members, and that annoyingly expressed the examination activities of the Ordinance at the defendant council and elected the chairman in the order of a large amount of money. This constitutes a disciplinary cause stipulated in Article 78 of the same Act, since the plaintiff violated the duty to maintain the dignity as a member under the law and the duty to prohibit an insulting speech to others, even if considering the circumstances and purpose of the above statement as alleged by the plaintiff, it constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity as a member under the law and the duty to prohibit an insulting speech to others.

(2) Whether the resolution of expulsion deviates from the discretionary scope

(A) Whether a resolution on a resolution against a member of a local council is appropriate shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the disciplinary cause, the circumstances or purpose leading up to such act, the infringement of other person's legal interests or the actual situation of the local council, and whether such act is an act in the original condition or related to the intention of the member, the circumstances leading up to the disciplinary action, the principles of equity and proportion in the disciplinary procedure and content, as well as the principles of equity and proportion, and further, the decision shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the contents of the act which caused the disciplinary cause; (b) the process leading up to such act; (c) the infringement of other person's legal interests; and (d) whether such act is an act in the original condition or is an individual; (d) the circumstances leading up to the disciplinary action; (e) the representative of

(B) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s instant remarks were made through a five-minute free speech at the plenary session of the Defendant Council, and thus, the honor of a certain member was openly damaged, and the status of the Defendant Council was considerably inferred. The Plaintiff perceived his parliamentary activities at the Defendant Council at ordinary level as the place of the strike to achieve the belief that he would be reasonable rather than the process of meeting the conversation and compromise with other members, and the Plaintiff appears to be justified for failing to comply with the procedures prescribed in the pertinent statutes in order to achieve such objective. However, the Plaintiff appears to have taken into account the circumstances supporting the instant disciplinary action, such as the fact that he was elected as a representative of the autonomous district as well as the elected representative of the Defendant Council, and that the Plaintiff did not submit all materials disclosed at the request of the Defendant Council later to the Plaintiff, which is an excessive response, and that there is no room to deem that the Plaintiff would be an excessive deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights to take account of the type of the Plaintiff’s opinion and the scope of disciplinary action against the Defendant Council’s non-compliance with the Plaintiff’s opinion.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and the disposition of this case shall be suspended until this judgment becomes final and conclusive, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gunam-su (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-Un