In a case where the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism notifies the director of the modern art gallery employed as a public official in contractual service of termination of the employment contract on the ground that trust relationship, which forms the basis of the employment contract, was destroyed due to violating the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and the duty of service under Article 7 of the Regulations on Contract Public Officials, the case affirming the judgment below holding that the termination of the above employment contract is null and void on the ground that it cannot be deemed that there was any reason to criticize otherwise, except that the trust relationship, which forms the basis of the employment contract, was destroyed due to the violation of the duty of service under Article 56 of

Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 7 of the Regulations on Contract Public Officials

Plaintiff (Law Firm Young-soo, Attorneys Kim-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu25066 decided April 8, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

After compiling the evidence adopted in the judgment, the court below recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the termination of the instant employment contract is null and void, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for remuneration.

① In the process of purchasing a package tour (La Balise; hereinafter “the instant art package”), which is a material of the Defendant’s disposal, the Plaintiff may not be deemed a violation of the Defendant’s duty of collection of works of the National Art Gallery 4 [Attachment 1] under Article 15-2(1) of the Regulations on Collection and Management of Works of the National Museum 4 [Attachment 1] because it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff violated the Defendant’s duty of collection of works of this case on May 30, 2005, to say that the act of sending the instant package to La Balise Dalise, which is the other party to the contract, would not be deemed to have committed a violation of the Defendant’s duty of collection of works of this case, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff violated the Defendant’s duty of collection of works of this case to have breached the Defendant’s duty of collection of works of this case on the basis that it did not constitute a violation of the Defendant’s duty of collection of works of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the continuous termination of contract which affected the conclusion of the judgment, violation of the rules of evidence, and incomplete hearing.

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 on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)