[1] Criteria for determining whether a disciplinary action against a public official is an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretion

[2] The case holding that it is appropriate to dismiss a professor on the ground of a misconduct related to teaching employment

[1] In order to be considered as an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretionary power due to the excessive degree of disciplinary action against a public official, the content and nature of the misconduct, which caused the disciplinary action, and the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, etc., should be considered as a case where the contents of the disciplinary action can be objectively and objectively unreasonable.

[2] The case holding that it is appropriate to dismiss a professor on the ground of a misconduct related to teaching employment

[1] Articles 78(1), 56, 61, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act / [2] Articles 78(1), 56, 61, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu76 delivered on June 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1291), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu366 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 706), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1625 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 107)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

(Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu35096 delivered on June 13, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's approval of the plaintiff's misconduct as stated in its judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation by judging evidence contrary to the rules of experience. The grounds for appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In order to be regarded as an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretion due to excessive disciplinary action against a public official, the contents and nature of the misconduct which is the ground for disciplinary action and the administrative purpose that the disciplinary action intends to be achieved through a disciplinary action should be objectively unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu76, Jun. 12, 1984; 87Nu366, Mar. 22, 198; 90Nu1625, Nov. 13, 1990; 90Nu1625, Nov. 16, 199). Since the court below legitimately recognized that the plaintiff's act of refusing to accept the above disciplinary action against some of the applicants as professors before the second half-year professor recruitment period of 193, which is composed of three professors, was justifiable, and that the defendant's act of refusing to receive or offering certain amount of money and valuables for reasons of violating the duty of care of the professor is no more than 60, and it is difficult for the court below to accept it as a series of grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)