(a) When a disciplinary action, dismissal, etc. is taken against a public official and the notification of the disposition is placed in a state that can be seen by the person subject to the disposition, such disposition shall be effective even if there is no explanation of the reason for the disposition.

(b) If an action of dismissal is taken after the removal from a position, no appeal or examination request shall be filed against the former, and such action shall be asserted in an action for objection against the subsequent removal from the position, unless it is the case where the disposition is void automatically.

C. The Plaintiff is liable to prove that the grounds for removal have ceased to exist after the dismissal of his position, and the burden of proof is borne by the Plaintiff in the appeal lawsuit.

In taking disciplinary action against a public official, the notification of the disposition shall be made for the justifiable reason, and the purpose of the notification shall be to give the person subject to the disposition an opportunity to file a lawsuit in cases where he/she is dissatisfied with it. The delivery of a description of the reason for the disposition cannot be considered as an effective requirement, and if the notification of the disposition is placed in a situation where the person subject to the disposition can be seen, the administrative disposition shall be valid even if there is no issuance of a statement of the reason

Article 75 of the National Security Act; Article 76 (1) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 73-2 of the State Public Officials Act; Article 73 (2) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 1 of the Criminal Administration Act

Plaintiff

Minister of Government Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 67Gu175 delivered on January 11, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s agent is examined.

§ 75 of the State Public Officials Act shall apply to disciplinary action against a public official, or demotion, temporary retirement or dismissal disposition.

The disposition-taking authority or the disposition-taking authority shall issue an explanatory note stating the grounds for the disposition to the person subject to the disposition, so it is reasonable to provide the person subject to the disposition with an opportunity to release in case where the administrative disposition is made on justifiable grounds, and there is an objection to the person subject to the disposition, and it is reasonable to provide the person subject to the disposition with an opportunity to release in case where the notice of the grounds for the disposition cannot be considered as an effective requirement for the disposition, and if the notice of the disposition is placed in a situation that can be seen as the person subject to the disposition, the administrative disposition should be valid even if the notice of the disposition is not issued. In light of the records, it is clear that the plaintiff received the notice of the dismissal from the plaintiff and received the explanatory note of the grounds for the disposition 67.8.24, and it is clear that the court below did not issue the explanatory note of the grounds for the disposition, and it is just to determine that the disposition-taking was not issued even thereafter, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, and lack of reasoning.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 by such agent.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below is the same as the case in which the dismissal from position is again made.

in the case, the plaintiff was subject to removal against his will and was not subject to such removal.

If there is a uniform, a request for review to the appeals review committee under Article 76 (1) of the State Public Officials Act.

If the time limit for request has been set without any request for examination, and if the time limit for request has been set, it shall be judged that the disposition shall not be subject to any other unlawful dispute except for a case where the disposition is null and void as a matter of course, and the plaintiff shall file a request for examination or administrative litigation against the disposition of removal from position

In the administrative litigation against the subsequent disposition of dismissal, it is reasonable to judge that the disposition cannot be asserted again on the ground of the reason for revocation of the disposition of removal from position, even if the disposition of removal from position was conducted without investigating the facts as the plaintiff's head, it cannot be seen as a disposition of removal from position, and only is the reason for revocation). In the so-called appeal litigation seeking the cancellation of the disposition, the defendant who asserted the illegality of the administrative disposition should bear the burden of proving the legitimacy of the disposition, but the argument and burden of proving the special reason should be deemed to be the plaintiff. In this case, according to Article 73-2 (2) of the State Public Officials Act, the appointment authority or the appointment-recommendation authority shall give the position without delay if the cause for removal ceases to exist after the removal from position. Accordingly, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the ground for removal has ceased to exist after the removal from position. Accordingly, from this point of view, the court below's judgment that the plaintiff has the burden of proof is just and correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete hearing

Judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 4, 5, and 6 by such agent.

However, according to the records, the removal from the position of the plaintiff in Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the time of May 16, 1966, when the removal from the position of the plaintiff in Seoul Special Metropolitan City was made, the plaintiff's command and supervision ability to the part to which the plaintiff belongs is considerably lacking. Since this lack of capacity is deemed to fall under the reason for removal from position under Article 73-2 (1) 5 of the State Public Officials Act, this Article is applied, and the fact itself, such as the payment of excreta collection agency, unfair decision, etc., alleged by the plaintiff, is not a reason for removal from position. Thus, the court below's decision is not proper in that the removal from the position of the plaintiff in this purport is not null and void as it is based on legitimate evidence, and it is not an excessive disposition that the plaintiff's removal from the position of the plaintiff in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and it is not an excessive disposition that deviates from the scope of discretion to dismiss the plaintiff's dismissal from the position of dismissal, and there is no error in law

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)