A case where a dismissal disposition against a teacher who received money and valuables and entertainment from parents is justified;

The case affirming the dismissal of elementary school teachers on the ground that they received counseling from their parents on several occasions, borrowed obscene video tapes, received a total of KRW 200,000 in cash on two occasions, and caused water due to the act, such as an act in the park from around three: (a) they violated the duty of integrity under Article 61(1) of the State Public Officials Act and the duty of dignity maintenance under Article 63 of the same Act; and (b) they violated the duty of integrity under Article 61(1) of the State Public Officials Act.

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 61(1) and 63 of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff (Attorney O Byung-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The superintendent of the Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do (Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu15560 delivered on October 24, 1996

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff. The "the superintendent of education of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education" in the indication of parties to the judgment of the court below shall be corrected to

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

In order to be regarded as an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretionary authority due to excessive disciplinary action against a public official, the content and nature of the wrongful act that caused disciplinary action and the administrative purpose that the disciplinary action intends to be achieved through a disciplinary action should be objectively and objectively deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu18727, Apr. 26, 1996; 95Nu938, Jan. 26, 1996, etc.). As duly determined by the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-party's duty of care and disciplinary action against the non-party who violated the non-party's duty of care, including receiving counseling from the non-party who was the parents of the first grade school at Sungnam-nam Elementary School, and received entertainment such as drinking, etc. on several occasions, and the non-party lent obscene video tapes to the non-party for the same purpose as the non-party's right of care, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-party's duty of care and its own discretion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. Since it is obvious that there is any error in writing in the indication of the party concerned (defendant), it is corrected. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)