[1] Whether the act of leaving the workplace before obtaining permission for annual leave constitutes grounds for disciplinary action that violates Article 50(1) of the Local Public Officials Act (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a public official's act of absence without permission from his principal in order to participate in the general strike by the resolution of the Korean Public Officials' Union constitutes an "act of absence from work" prohibited by Article 50 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act

[3] The limits of discretion and the criteria for determining whether a person having authority to take action against a public official abuse discretionary power

[1] Article 50 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act / [2] Article 50 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act / [3] Articles 78 and 79 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu657, 87Nu658 delivered on December 8, 1987 (Gong1988, 296) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2521 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2233) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2528, 2535 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2103), Supreme Court Decision 98Du6951 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong200Sang, 73) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5546 delivered on May 11, 2006, 206; Supreme Court Decision 2006Du386465 delivered on August 24, 2006)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Sam Young, Attorneys Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Superintendent of Chungcheongbuk-do Office of Education

Daejeon High Court Decision 2006Nu703 decided Nov. 23, 2006

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Even if a public official applied for annual leave within the scope of the number of days of statutory leave, and the head of an administrative agency with regard to such annual leave application shall grant permission, the act of leaving the workplace before granting permission for the annual leave application is in violation of Article 50(1) of the Local Public Officials Act, which constitutes a ground for disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu657, 658, Dec. 8, 1987; 96Nu2521, Jun. 14, 1996, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, even if considering the purpose and circumstances of the collective strike of this case as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below that the act of Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 without permission of the principal of each school in order to participate in the general strike of this case pursuant to the resolution of the so-called National Public Officials' Union constitutes "an act of escaping from work" prohibited by Article 50 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence as to the grounds of appeal concerning the participation in the general strike of this case.

In addition, the judgment of the court below that there are grounds for disciplinary action such as the time of the original adjudication against the plaintiff Kim Jong-soo is just and it cannot be said that there is no violation of the rules of evidence as

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, it shall be at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it shall be illegal. If a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and clearly deemed unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure, etc., depending on the specific cases. Even if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure, it shall be against the public interest principles that should exercise the authority to take the disciplinary measure for the public interest, or if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary action goes against the principle of proportionality or the standards of fair application of the same degree without reasonable grounds, it shall be deemed that the disciplinary measure violates the principle of equality.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that each of the disciplinary actions against the plaintiffs in this case cannot be viewed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power because it is too harsh to the extent that it has considerably lost validity under social norms, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to discretion of disciplinary action, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)