Domination of subordinate personnel and neglect of the supervisor's duty to supervise them;

Inasmuch as there is an illegality corresponding to removal from office, it cannot be deemed that the supervisor neglected his duty of supervision. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the fact that the supervisor neglected his duty of supervision based on evidence for the reason that the supervisor neglected his duty of supervision.

Article 69 of the Local Public Officials Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Sung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 77Gu297 delivered on July 10, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

In light of the various laws and regulations on the disciplinary action against local public officials, there is an illegality in the removal of subordinate employees, and there is no provision that the supervisor failed to perform his duty of supervision. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize specific facts about the fact that the supervisor neglected his duty of supervision based on evidence for the reason of the misconduct of subordinate employees.

Even if the government enacted for eradicating the corruption by the government and preventing corruption in order to promote the West-si, it is prohibited from being negligent in the supervision to dismiss the next executive officer ex officio due to the misconduct committed by the subordinate staff members. However, according to the records, the plaintiff is the head of the Gun of Gyeonggi-do, and there is no evidence that the construction of the same Gun and the civil engineering division, and the non-party 1 and the urban community chief were negligent in receiving money from the business operator, and there is no evidence to prove that there is any negligence that the plaintiff cannot be subject to removal from office on the ground that the court below is just and therefore there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the responsibility of the supervisor in the original judgment.

As to ground of appeal No. 2:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the plaintiff's act of receiving money and valuables from the constructor within the jurisdiction of Ansan-gun was a violation of the duty of integrity under Article 53 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act, and judged that the choice of the most severe type of disciplinary action is an illegal act beyond the scope of discretionary authority if considering the plaintiff's achievements served as a local public official and the fact that the plaintiff received official commendation several times as an excellent public official, and therefore, the above judgment is acceptable in light of the records, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the disciplinary discretion.

The reasoning of the judgment below is that the removal of the plaintiff from office does not exceed the scope of discretion because the amount of the money received by the plaintiff in this case is less than the amount of the money received by the plaintiff in this case. In addition, in determining whether the removal from office constitutes abuse of discretion, considering the achievements of the public official who received the disposition in the past cannot be said to offset the past's past public misconduct and the present misconduct. Thus, there is no ground to believe that it is erroneous.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, 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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)