The effects of a disciplinary decision implemented without giving an opportunity to make a prior statement.

Even if the disciplinary committee notifies a discipline accused person of his/her oral appearance before he/she receives a request for the decision, and receives a written waiver of appearance from an institution other than the disciplinary committee and thereby deprives a discipline accused person of an opportunity to state his/her opinion in advance, the decision on disciplinary action cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the procedural defect is significant and apparent.

Articles 81(3), 13(2) and 11(2) of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Busan commissioner of the District Tax Office the maximum number of litigation performers

Daegu High Court Decision 75Gu95 delivered on April 7, 1977

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows. In other words, the defendant made a request for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs on July 16, 1975 to the Busan Regional Tax Office General Disciplinary Committee, and the disciplinary committee did not give written notice of attendance to the plaintiffs who are the disciplinary suspect. However, the notice of attendance was given orally on July 15, 1975. The letter of confirmation on July 16, 1975 (the letter of confirmation of the staff of the auditor's office belonging to the defendant was received from the plaintiffs who were detained on the charge of acceptance of bribe as of July 15, 1975, and the contents of which are stated by the prosecutor's office are different) and the resolution against the plaintiffs was made only by the waiver that the plaintiffs could not attend.

If the facts are the same, the disciplinary decision procedure violates the provisions of Articles 81(3) and 13(2) of the State Public Officials Disciplinary Decree of Article 10(2) and Article 11(2) of the State Public Officials Act, and the disciplinary committee made an oral notification of the suspect to appear before the disciplinary committee before receiving the request for the decision, and the refusal of appearance is made by any institution other than the disciplinary committee (the person who received an administrative assistant for the defendant supervisory officer) and then deprived the person under disciplinary action of the opportunity to make a statement in advance. However, the decision of the court below that the disciplinary decision cannot be said to be null and void due to a significant and apparent defect in the procedure, despite the fact that the decision cannot be said to be null and void, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course. We find it reasonable.

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the court below.

In this decision, the opinions of the judges involved are consistent.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)