Although a person was indicted for the same facts as the disciplinary cause at issue and was convicted in the first instance court, if the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive on the facts thereafter, whether it constitutes a ground for invalidation of disciplinary action as a matter of course (negative)

The administrative disposition is considered to be null and void only when the defect is serious and objectively obvious. On the other hand, if a person was indicted for the same fact as the one at issue as the cause of the disciplinary action, and was convicted by the first instance court, even if the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive, which led to the above disciplinary action resulting in the absence of evidence, it is nothing more than a case where a mistake of fact was made due to a mistake in the determination of evidence, and such unlawful cause does not constitute a cause for revocation as a cause for invalidation.

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant

Plaintiff

The astronomical Market

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu8205 delivered on October 22, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The administrative disposition is considered to be null and void only when it is serious and objectively obvious. On the other hand, if the plaintiff was indicted for the same fact as the one at issue due to the disciplinary cause and was sentenced to a conviction in the first instance court due to the final judgment of innocence, even though the above disciplinary action was caused by the final judgment of innocence, it is nothing more than a mistake of fact due to erroneous determination of evidence, and such unlawful cause does not constitute a ground for nullification as to the ground for revocation. (See Supreme Court Decision 80Nu84 delivered on July 28, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu710 delivered on August 20, 1985.) In light of the records, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for dismissal of the plaintiff for a significant and obvious reason that the removal of the plaintiff from office could not be objectively and objectively determined as a ground for nullification of the above disciplinary disposition, and it is hard to see that the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff without a reasonable ground for nullification of the disciplinary cause.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed 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.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)