(a) Whether disciplinary deliberation procedures are appropriate without notice of attendance under Article 8(1) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials (negative);

B. Whether Article 7 of the same Decree, which provides the deadline for a resolution on disciplinary action, is a critical provision (affirmative)

A. The notice of attendance of a discipline accused person under Article 8(1) of the Decree on the Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials is a compulsory provision that is made out of the measures to give the discipline accused person a statement of facts favorable to himself or give him an opportunity to submit evidential materials, and thus, the disciplinary review procedure without the above notice of attendance is unlawful.

B. Article 7 of the same Decree, which provides for the deadline for a disciplinary resolution, provides that a prompt disciplinary resolution, unlike the prescription of the disciplinary cause under Article 83-2 of the State Public Officials Act, shall be sought to prevent an unstable situation over a long period of time in administrative law by promoting prompt disciplinary resolution and continuously facilitating administrative actions through the replacement of successors, etc., unlike the prescription of the disciplinary cause under Article 83-2 of the State Public Officials Act, and the disciplinary resolution has been made after the expiration of the deadline for the disciplinary resolution, the issue of responsibility for the relevant persons is separate, and the disciplinary resolution is not unlawful.

(a) Article 8 (1) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials; Article 7 (1) of the same Decree;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu251 delivered on October 8, 1985 (Gong1985,1482) 86Nu623 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987,1408) 91Nu961 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong192,2425)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the president

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Gu959 delivered on October 1, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The notice of attendance of a discipline accused person under Article 8 (1) of the Decree on the Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials is a compulsory provision made out of the measures to give a discipline accused person a statement of facts favorable to him or an opportunity to submit evidentiary materials at any time when the disciplinary committee is held (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu623, Jul. 21, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu961, Jul. 14, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff did not appear at the above 10th of May 27, 1989 and the above 10th of June 25 of the same year because the plaintiff did not appear at the above 10th of June of the same year at the above 5th of June, the court below's decision that the plaintiff did not appear at the 1st of June of the above 1989 or the above 1st of June of the same year, and that the plaintiff did not appear at the 1st of June of the above 1980 disciplinary committee and the second of the disciplinary committee did not appear at the 1st of the above 6th of the above disciplinary committee because the plaintiff did not appear at the 1st of June of the same year and the second of the 3th of the above disciplinary committee's decision that the plaintiff did not appear at the 1st of June 28th of the same year and the third of the above disciplinary committee's decision that the plaintiff did not appear at the 1th of August 28th of the same year.

On the other hand, Article 7 of the above Disciplinary Decree provides that the disciplinary action shall be deemed to be unlawful after the lapse of the period provided in Article 7(1) of the above Disciplinary Decree, which provides that the disciplinary action shall be held against a person who committed a violation of Article 8(1) of the above Disciplinary Decree, which provides that the disciplinary action shall be held against a person who committed a violation of Article 8(2) of the State Public Officials Act, and that the disciplinary action shall be held against a person who committed a violation of Article 8(1) of the above Disciplinary Decree, and that the disciplinary action shall be held against a person who committed a violation of Article 8(1) of the above Disciplinary Decree, and thus, it shall be deemed that the disciplinary action shall not be deemed unlawful since the disciplinary action was decided after the expiration of the period provided in Article 7(1) of the above Disciplinary Decree, and it shall be deemed that the above disciplinary action shall not affect the disciplinary action by violating Article 8(1) of the above Decree, and it shall be deemed that the above disciplinary action shall not affect the above disciplinary decision by misapprehending legal principles.

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.