(a) Time to issue an explanatory note stating the grounds for disciplinary action prescribed in Article 67 (1) and (2) of the Local Public Officials Act;

(b) Whether the explanatory note of the grounds for disciplinary action can be deemed to have been delivered to the addressee's agent;

A. It is reasonable to view that an explanatory note stating the grounds for disciplinary action as stipulated in Article 67(1) and (2) of the Local Public Officials Act is issued when it is placed in a position that can generally be seen as a person subject to the disciplinary action.

B. If the explanatory note of the disciplinary action is delivered by mail (registration) to the addressee’s agent, it shall be deemed that the said explanatory note has been duly issued as satisfying the requirements of Article 135 of the Postal Rules.

A. Article 67 of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 111 of the Civil Act, Article 34 of the Postal Service Act, Article 135 of the Postal Rules, Article 67 of the Local Public Officials Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Gosung Gun

Daegu High Court Decision 82 Gu220 delivered on May 10, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to Article 67 (1) and (2) of the Local Public Officials Act, when the appointing authority takes a disciplinary measure against a public official, demotion, temporary retirement, removal from position, or dismissal, it shall be issued to the public official with an explanatory note specifying the reasons for the disposition. A public official who receives the explanatory note shall, when he is dissatisfied with the disposition, request the Review Committee to review the disposition within 20 days from the date of receipt of the explanatory note, except for the case where he is subject to the disposition according to the decision of the Review Committee under Article 72 (3) of the same Act. However, there is no special provision regarding the method of delivery of the explanatory note clearly stating the reasons for the above disciplinary measure. Therefore, in this case where the above explanatory note is delivered by the mail (registration) and it is reasonable to deem that the said explanatory note was delivered to the plaintiff as a delivery of the said mail, and as such, the delivery of the mail to the above public official by the Nonparty 1 is deemed to have been duly issued as a delivery agent of the mail under Article 34 of the Postal Service Act (Registration No. 13).

The judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient and inappropriate, but it is not acceptable to argue that the service of this case to the plaintiff takes effect upon the delivery of the statement of reasons for dismissal to the non-party at the plaintiff's domicile at the plaintiff's domicile.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young