2010Guhap2068 Revocation of disciplinary action

1. prescribedA (64 years old, south);

2. Kim A1 (64 years old, South)

3. Lee A2 (59 years of birth, South Korea)

4. Lee A3 (59 years old, South Korea)

5. Gamba4 (59 years old, South)

6. HA5 (68 years old, South Korea)

7. Lee A6 (67 years old, South Korea)

8. YellowA7 (58 years old, south);

9. Gamba8 (56 years old, south)

10. Gamba9 (70 years old, South)

11. Park 10 (54 years old, 54)

12. Kim Bol (62 years old, South)

13. New A12 (67 years old, South)

14. Park13 (57 years old, South)

15. Kim A14 (59years, South Korea)

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The head of Busan Metropolitan Government;

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The head of Busan Metropolitan Government;

Litigation Performers Choi D

3. The head of Busan Metropolitan City Do;

Litigation Performers AD1

4. The head of Busan Metropolitan Government;

The litigation performer redD2

5. Busan Metropolitan City △△△;

Litigation Performers Kim D3

6. 부산광역시 ▲구청장

Litigation Performers Park Do-4

7. 부산광역시 ☆구청장

Litigation Performers Lee Do5

8. 부산광역시 ★구청장

Litigation Performers Do-6

19. The head of Busan Metropolitan Government;

Litigation Performers South D7

10. The head of Busan Metropolitan Government;

Litigation Performers Doo8

11. The head of the Busan Metropolitan Government;

Litigation Performers Lee Do-9

12. The head of the Busan Metropolitan Government;

Litigation Performers Od10

13. The head of Busan Metropolitan Government;

Litigation Performers OD11

October 29, 2010

December 10, 2010

1. The dismissal disposition taken by the head of the Gu of Busan Metropolitan City against the Plaintiff Jeong on October 26, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. All claims of plaintiffs Kim1, Lee 2, Lee 3, Lee 4, Park 5, Lee 5, Lee6, Park 8, Park 9, Park 10, Park 11, Shin 12, Park 13, and Kim 14 are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff Jeong-A and the head of Busan Metropolitan City shall be borne by the above defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff Lee 6 and the head of the defendant Busan Metropolitan City shall be borne by the above plaintiff KimA1, Lee Dong2, Lee 3, Park 4, Park A5, Park Ga7, Park A7, Park A8, Park A9, Park A10, Kim A11, Shin A12, Park 13, and Kim 14.

주문 제1항과 같다. 피고 부산광역시 구청장(이하 '◆구청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 23. 원고 김A1에 대하여 한 강등처분을 취소한다. 피고 부산광역시 □구청장(이하 '□ 구청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 29. 원고 이A2에 대하여 한 감봉 1월의 처분을 취소한 다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다), 피고 부산광역시 구청장(이하 '■구청장' 이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 23. 원고 이A3에 대하여 한 감봉 1월의 처분을 취소한다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다). 피고 부산광역시 A(이하 'A'라 한다)가 2009. 10. 26. 원고 박A4에 대하여 한 견책처분을 취소한다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다).

피고 부산광역시 ▲ 구청장(이하 ▲ 구청장' 이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 29. 원고 임A5에 대하여 한 감봉 1월의 처분을 취소한다. 피고 부산광역시 구청장(이하 (구청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 26. 원고 이A6에 대하여 한 감봉 1월의 처분을 취소한다. 피고 부산광역시 ☆구청장(이하 ‘☆구청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 27. 원고 황A7에 대하여 한 견책처분을 취소한다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다). 피고 부산광역시 ★구청장(이하 ‘★구청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 29. 원고 박A8에 대하여 한 감봉 1월의 처분을 취소한다. 피고 부산광역시 ♤구청장(이하 '♤구청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 27. 원고 박A9에 대하여 한 감봉 1월의 처분을 취소한다. 피고 부산광역시 구청장(이하 '♠구 청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 11. 5. 원고 박A10에 대하여 한 견책 처분을 취소한다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다). 피고 부산광역시 구청장(이하 '구청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 10. 26. 원고 김A11에 대하여 한 견책 처분을 취소한다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다). 피고 구청장이 2009. 10. 23. 원고 신A12에 대하여 한 견책처분을 취소한다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다). 피고 부산광역시 구청장(이하 '구청 장'이라 한다)이 2009. 11. 2. 원고 박A13에 대하여 한 견책처분을 취소한다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다). 피고 부산광역시 ⑦구청장(이하 '▽구청장'이라 한다)이 2009. 11. 3. 원고 김A14에 대하여 한 견책처분을 취소한다(소장 기재 처분일자는 오기로 보인다).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the plaintiffs

1) The plaintiff Jeong-A is a local public official appointed on April 10, 1989 and worked for the local administrative assistant in Busan Metropolitan City from January 3, 2007 to January 25, 2009 (the full-time officer of the labor union from November 13, 2008 to October 25, 2009) and is the chairman of the labor union (hereinafter referred to as "D").

2) 원고 김A1은 1987. 10. 26. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2009. 7. 1.부터 부산광역시 ◆구 사업소에서 근무하는 지방행정주사로서 D 장이다.

3) 원고 이A2는 1992. 12. 12. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2007. 10. 1.부터 부산광역시 □구 ▦과에서 근무하는 지방조무원8급으로서 ▷ 부산지역본부 □구지부장이다.

4) The plaintiff Lee Dong-A3 was appointed as a local public official on February 27, 1979 and served as a local public official from March 16, 2009 to Busan Metropolitan City unit, and is the head of the Gu's branch office of the Busan Metropolitan City unit.

5) Plaintiff Park Poe-4 was appointed as a local public official on August 2, 1986 and worked as a local administrative assistant in Busan Metropolitan City A1 from November 5, 2007 to Busan Metropolitan City, and is the head of △△ branch office of the D Busan District Headquarters.

6) 원고 임A5는 1990. 5. 21. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2009. 3. 4.부터 부산광역시 ▲구 ◎과 지방행정주사보로서 ▷ 부산지역본부 ▲구지부장이다.

7) The plaintiff Lee Ga6 was appointed as a local public official on December 21, 1993, and worked as a local tax assistant for local tax officials from March 18, 2009 to Busan Metropolitan City, and is the head of the Gu branch of the D Busan District Headquarters.

8) The plaintiff Yellow A7 is a local administrative assistant appointed as a local public official on March 14, 1992 and worked for the department in Busan Metropolitan City from March 21, 2008 to March 21, 2008, and is the head of the Gu of the Busan Regional Headquarters.

9) 원고 박A8은 1981. 2. 28. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2007. 1. 1.부터 부산광역시 ★구 ⑦과에서 근무하는 지방행정주사로서 ▷ 부산지역본부 ★구지부장이다.

10) 원고 박A9는 1996. 10. 11. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 1999. 9. 3.부터 부산광역시 ♤구 총무국 XX과에서 근무하는 지방세무주사보로서 ▷ 부산지역본부 ♤구지부 장이다.

11) 원고 박A10은 1983. 3. 15. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2008. 1. 1.부터 부산광역시 구 주민센터에서 근무하는 지방행정주사로서 ▷ 부산지역본부 구지부장이다.

12) 원고 김A11은 1992. 4. 7. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2009. 5. 1.부터 부산 ♧구 ①과에서 근무하는 지방기능7급으로서 ▷ 부산지역본부 구지부장이다.

13) 원고 신A12는 2000. 1. 1. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2009. 7. 1.부터 부산광역시 ◆구 ①과에서 근무하는 사회복지주사보로서 D 부산지역본부 구지부장이다.

14) 원고 박A13은 1987. 10. 26. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2009. 4. 2.부터 부산광역시 구 ◎ 동주민센터에서 근무하는 지방행정주사로서 ▷ 부산지역본부 구지부장이다.

15) 원고 김A14는 1985. 8. 1. 지방공무원으로 임용되어 2006. 10. 13.부터 부산광역시 ⑦구 ①동주민센터에서 근무하는 지방행정주사로서 ▷ 부산지역본부 ▽구지부장이다.

B. Declarations of Korean Teachers' Union

1) On June 18, 2009, the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Teachers’ Union”) announced a notice of the assembly and demonstration under the name of 16,171 teachers affiliated with the former school’s 16,171 under the title “The heavy value of the lawsuit against democracy in June 18, 2009 is added.”

2) The Assembly and Demonstration’s text refers to the investigation of candlelights, the investigation of PDbook, the ‘PDbook fire incident’, the ‘inter-Korean relations color, and the educational crisis, etc., and the fundamental human rights of the present government were seriously damaged due to the abuse of governmental authority, resulting in a crisis in democracy, and the following requirements were presented.

The Government is subject to the abuse of the public authority in front of the people, and is in a chain of the state affairs.

- thoroughly guaranteeing the freedom and human rights of speech and assemblies and conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. They will promote policies to suspend policies focused on privileges and to take into account the socially weak.

- Suspension of anti- democratic musical acts, such as media law, and re-promotion of the Korean Peninsula canal.

- Suspension of competition-related school policies such as the establishment of self-accidents, guarantee of democratization in school operation, expansion of educational welfare for students of the poor class, and guarantee student human rights. 7.19.

1) ▷는 2009. 6. 18.자 전교조의 시국선언에 대하여 같은 날 “전교조 시국선언 지지한다. 정부는 징계방침 철회하라!"는 제목으로 전교조의 시국선언을 지지하고, 시국선언 참가자들에 대한 징계를 철회하라고 주장하는 성명을 발표하였고, 2009. 6. 22. D, 노동조합(이하 라 한다) 및 노동조합(이하라고 하고 통틀어 '3개 공무원노조'라 한다) 간부들은 서울 서초구 서초동 ★ 사무실에서 전교조의 시국선언에 동조하면서 3개 공무원노조가 공동으로 시국선언할 것을 논의하였다.

2) On June 23, 2009, the Minister of Public Administration and Security declared that the Assembly was a collective act prohibited by the State Public Officials Act. Accordingly, the Defendants requested the public officials under his jurisdiction to refrain from participating in the Assembly report on several occasions. However, on June 26, 2009, the 3 public officials labor union members including Plaintiff Jung-A, the chairman, and executive officers of the Democratic Trade Union Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “National Labor Union Federation”) held the “Public Officials Labor Union Meeting related to the Public Officials Labor Union Act” in the room of the Assembly, and declared that the Assembly was demoted by asserting that the assembly pressure was suspended in relation to the discussion of three public officials labor unions.

(d) Advertisements and placards;

1) ▷는 2009. 7. 13.자 신문 32면과 한겨레신문 7면에 전면 광고(이하 '이 사건 전면광고'라 한다. 위 광고 하단부에는 D의 각 본부·지부의 명칭이 기재되어 있는데 여기에 부산지역본부 ◆구지부, ▲구지부, ⑦구지부, 구지부, 구지부, 구지부, ★구지부, 구지부, 구지부, 구지부, 구지부, 구지부, 구지부, 구지부, 요구지부, △지부가 포함되어 있다)를 실었는데, 그 내용은 “정권이 아닌 국민의 공무원이 되고 싶습니다. 공무원은 민주주의 · 서민경제·한반도 평화·노동복지에 대한 걱정의 말도 할 수 없습니다. 모이자! 7. 19. 교사 ·공무원 시국선언 탄압규탄, 민주회복 시국대회. 2009. 7. 19.(일) 16시 서울광장”으로 되어 있었다.

2) ▷는 같은 날 각 본부·지부에 2009. 7. 13.부터 2009. 7. 27.까지 신문 독자 게시판에 전교조의 시국선언을 지지하는 내용의 의견 광고(이하 '이 사건 릴레이 광고'라 한다)를 내고 같은 내용의 현수막을 해당 자치단체 청사 건물 외벽에 걸도록 지침을 시달하였고, 그에 따라 2009. 7. 13.부터 2009. 7. 27.까지 신문 독자게시판에 전교조의 시국선언을 지지한다는 내용의 ▷ 산하 각 본부·지부 명의의 릴레이광고가 게재되었는데, ▷ 부산지역본부 ◆구지부, 구지부, ▲구지부, 구지부, 구지부, 구지부, ★구지부, ■구지부, 구지부, 강▲구지부, △지부, ④구지부, 구지부 명의의 광고는 2009. 7. 27.자 신문 8면에 게재되었다. 또한 위와 같은 내용이 기재된 현수막이 서울특별시 서초구 등 27개 ▷ 소속 지부에 게시되었다.

(e) 19. 19. Extraordinary and pan-national competitions;

1) 교사·공무원 시국선언 탄압 규탄, 민주회복 시국대회(이하 '이 사건 시국대회'라 한다) 가) 2009. 7. 19. 16:00경부터 같은 날 17:00 경까지 서울역 광장에서 당 강C 의원, 이C1 의원, 당 송C2 의원, 노C3 - 당 대표, 임C4 민주노총 위원장, 이C5 전민주노총 위원장, 전교조 소속 조합원 1,100명, 소속 조합원 150명, ☆ 소속 조합원 100명, 소속 조합원 50명 정도가 참가한 가운데, 전교조 사무처장 임춘근의 사회로 7. 19. 2차 범국민대회'의 사전행사로서 “교사·공무원 시국선언 탄압 규탄대회”가 개최되었다.

나) 원고 정A는 “공무원들은 신문광고를 통해 시국선언을 하고 있다. 공무원 노조통합을 이뤄 민생민주를 위한 공무원노조로 거듭날 것이다”라고 연설하였고, 원고 김A1은 ▷ 부산지역본부의 깃발을 들고 원고 정A 등 발언자들의 선창에 따라 구호를 제창하는 방법 등으로 위 규탄대회에 참가하였는데, 집회 참가자들은 “온 국민의 시국선언으로 MB악법 저지하자" 라는 구호를 외쳤고, '시국선언 탄압중단', '4대강 죽이기 절대 안 돼' 및 '언론악법 저지'라는 정치적 구호가 기재된 종이 모자를 쓰고 '민주주의 죽이지 마라', 'MB악법 이제 그만, 대한민국을 살려줘' 및 '4대강 삽질 STOP' 등과 같이 현 정부를 비판하는 정치적 주장이 기재된 피켓을 들거나 '', '당', '①당’, ‘O 당', '당', '산업노동조합', '', '' 등 정당과 노동단체 및 사회단체의 깃발을 들고 집회에 참가하였다.

C) In addition, in the Seoul Station square, there was a distribution of printed arguments, including “976 dismissed persons who want to find off the future of the nationwide workers, the two-dimensional layoffs,” “non-social labor,” “I would be in accordance with the Economic Co-operation of the Peoples of the Republic of Korea,” “I would be in accordance with the Economic Co-operation of the Peoples of the Republic of Korea,” “MB trial, university students’ solidarity for democratic recovery” and other political arguments.

(ii) the second Korean People's Congress for Democratic Recovery;

A) From 17:00 to 19:00 on the same day, the second national conference for the restoration of democracy was continuously conducted from the Seoul Station to the society of the chairman of the ANoC6 union. The participants in the assembly have released the Press Act, and died of non-regular workers in the press. The participants expressed relief that “I will stop the 4th classical destruction of the environment where he was dead at the end of the regular enforcement of the Assembly,” which “I would like to stop the 4th classical death of blood waste, and to guarantee the freedom of expression,” and “I would like to play a 10-meter radius in length, stating “The suspension of the Press Act, the suspension of pressure, the suspension of non-regular dismissal of workers, and the suspension of four classical death.”

나) 또한, Ⅲ 이C7 공동대표는 “반 MB전선을 만들어 똘똘 뭉쳐 투쟁해 나가 자”라고 연설하고, 민주노총 임C4 위원장은 “우리 노동자들은 쌍용차 공권력 투입과 미디어법 강행처리 시 전면 파업에 돌입할 것이다”라고 연설하였으며, 최D1 언론노조 위원장은 “언론악법 폐지를 위해 MB정권에 맞서 끝까지 투쟁할 것이다”라고 연설하였다. 계속하여 당 송C2 의원은 “언론은 민주주의 생명이다. 미디어법은 절대로 통과되어서는 안 된다"라고 연설하고, 민노당 강C 의원은 “현 정부는 서민정부를 죽이고 있다"라고 연설하였으며, 당 유C8 의원은 “현 정부와 한판 붙어서 이 지구상에서 영원히 격리시키자”라고 연설하였다.

F. Disciplinary action against the plaintiffs and the result of appeal review

1) On August 6, 2009, the head of Busan Metropolitan City Mayor requested the Defendants to take disciplinary action against the Defendants, through the “request for cooperation in disciplinary action against a public official labor union-related collective act”, the head of D core leaders, the head of local headquarters, and the head of the instant front-time advertisement, display of a banner, etc. who planned and led the instant assembly and demonstration, or directly participated in the instant assembly and demonstration.

2) Disciplinary action and result of appeal against the plaintiffs

A) Plaintiff Jeong-A

(1) On September 7, 2009, the defendant head of the Gu demanded a heavy disciplinary decision to the chairperson of the personnel committee of Busan Metropolitan City on the grounds that the plaintiff Jeong planned and led the instant national conference.

(2) 부산광역시 인사위원회는 2009. 10. 8. “원고 정A가 전교조 시국선언 지지 성명을 발표하고, 시국선언 강행입장을 표명하는 등 이 사건 시국대회를 추진한 행위, 이 사건 시국대회에 참여하여 대회사를 한 행위, 이 사건 전면광고를 게재하고 ▷ 홈페이지에 팝업창을 띄우는 등 이 사건 시국대회에 참석을 독려한 행위, ▷ 각 지역본부 및 지부별로 전교조 시국선언을 지지하는 현수막을 달도록 지침을 내린 행위”는 지방공무원법 제48조(성실의 의무), 제49조(복종의 의무), 제55조(품위유지의 의무), 제58조(집단행위의 금지), 구 공무원의 노동조합 설립 및 운영 등에 관한 법률(2010. 3. 17. 법률 제10133호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 공무원노조법'이라 한다) 제3조(노동조합 활동의 보장 및 한계), 제4조(정치활동의 금지) 규정을 위반한 것이라고 보아 해임처분을 의결하였고, 피고 구청장은 2009. 10. 26. 원고 정A에 대하여 해임처분을 하였다.

(3) The Plaintiff Jeong-A filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed it on February 2, 2010.

(4) In the case of violation of the Local Public Officials Act by the Seoul Central District Court 2010Gohap220 on September 13, 2010, the Plaintiff Company was sentenced to a fine of two million won on the ground that the instant dismissal ground was prohibited by Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act by engaging in collective action for activities other than official duties.

B) Plaintiff Kim Jongl

(1) 피고 ◆구청장은 2009.9.7. 부산광역시 인사위원회 위원장에게 원고 김A1이 불법대회인 이 사건 시국대회를 개최하고 깃발을 내세워 주도적으로 참여하였다.는 이유로 중징계 의결을 요구하였다.

(2) 부산광역시 인사위원회는 2009. 10. 8. “원고 김A1이 정치적 성격의 범국 민대회를 이용하여 불법대회인 이 사건 시국대회를 개최하고, 깃발을 내세워 주도적으로 참여한 행위”는 지방공무원법 제48조(성실의 의무), 제49조(복종의 의무), 제55조(품 위유지의 의무), 제58조(집단행위의 금지), 구 공무원노조법 제3조(노동조합 활동의 보장 및 한계), 제4조(정치활동의 금지) 규정을 위반한 것이라고 보아 강등 처분을 의결하였고, 피고 ◆구청장은 2009.10.23. 원고 김A1에 대하여 강등처분을 하였다. (3) 원고 김A1은 그 무렵 부산광역시 소청심사위원회에 소청심사를 청구하였으나, 위 위원회는 2010. 2. 2. 이를 기각하였다.

(4) On January 5, 2010, in the case of violation of the Local Public Officials Act by the Busan District Court Decision 2009Da5223, the Plaintiff Kim1 was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of violation of the Local Public Officials Act was “collective act for activities other than public duties” prohibited by Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act.

C) Plaintiff Lee Dong2

(1) On September 1, 2009, the head of the Defendant LAB requested the chairperson of the Busan Metropolitan Personnel Committee for the instant full-time advertisement and the encouragement of Plaintiff A2 to participate in the national conference, and the resolution of heavy disciplinary action against the instant visible advertisement.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided on the suspension of one month as it violated the provisions of Article 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), 58 (Prohibition of Collective Conduct), 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Local Public Officials Act, and the head of the Defendant YU decided on the suspension of one month.

(3) Plaintiff A2 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, and on February 2, 2010, the said commission changed on February 2, 2010 into one month for the reduction of salary (the disciplinary action against Plaintiff A2 on October 29, 2009 was taken on October 1, 2009, and this part was subject to the instant review; hereinafter the same shall apply).

D) Plaintiff E.A3

(1) On September 1, 2009, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu requested the chairperson of the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee to make a resolution of heavy disciplinary action against Plaintiff A3’s publication of the instant front advertisement and promotion of participation in the national conference, and the instant front advertisement advertisement.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided on the suspension of one month as it violated the provisions of Article 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), 58 (Prohibition of Collective Conduct), 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Local Public Officials Act, and Defendant △△△ was subject to the disposition of suspension of one month on October 23, 2009.

(3) On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff A3 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeal Committee on the above disposition, and the said Committee rendered a decision to change the above disposition into one month as a salary reduction of the above disposition.

E) Plaintiff Park 4

(1) On September 2, 2009, Defendant △△ requested the Chairperson of the Busan Metropolitan Personnel Committee for Food and Drug Organization to make a decision on the heavy disciplinary action against Plaintiff Park Jong-A4’s act of publishing the instant full-time advertisement and encouraging him to participate in the national conference.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided on the suspension of one month as it violated the provisions of Article 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), and 58 (Prohibition of Collective Conduct), Article 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and Article 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the former Public Officials Labor Union Adjustment Act, and Defendant △△△ was subject to the suspension of one month.

(3) Plaintiff Park 4 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, and the said commission rendered a decision to change the above disposition to the reprimand on February 2, 2010. F) Plaintiff Park 5

(1) 피고 ▲구청장은 2009. 9. 4. 부산광역시 인사위원회 위원장에게 원고 임A5의 시국선언 지지 현수막 게시행위, 이 사건 전면광고 게재 및 시국대회 참여 독려 행위, 이 사건 릴레이광고 행위에 대하여 중징계 의결을 요구하였다.

(2) 부산광역시 인사위원회는 2009. 10. 8. 원고 임A5의 위 행위가 지방공무원법 제48조(성실의 의무), 제49조(복종의 의무), 제55조(품위유지의 의무), 제58조(집단행 위의 금지), 구 공무원노조법 제3조(노동조합 활동의 보장 및 한계), 제4조(정치활동의 금지) 규정을 위반한 것이라고 보아 감봉 1월 처분을 의결하였고, 피고 ▲ 구청장은 2009. 10. 29. 감봉 1월의 징계처분을 하였다.

(3) Plaintiff A5 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, but the said commission dismissed it on February 2, 2010.

G) Plaintiff E.A6

(1) On September 7, 2009, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu requested the Chairperson of the Busan Metropolitan Personnel Committee to make a decision on disciplinary action against the act of posting a banner supported by Plaintiff Lee A6, the act of encouraging the Plaintiff to publish the front advertisement of this case and the participation in the national assembly, and the act of advertising the instant

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided on the reduction of salary for one month by deeming that the above act of the plaintiff Lee Dong6 violated the provisions of Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), 58 (Prohibition of Collective Conduct), 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Local Public Officials Act. The defendant head of the Gu was subject to the disposition of one-month reduction of salary on October 26, 2009.

(3) The Plaintiff Lee A6 filed an appeal review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, but the said commission dismissed it on February 2, 2010.

H) Plaintiff Yellow A7

(1) 피고 강▲구청장은 2009. 9. 1. 부산광역시 인사위원회 위원장에게 원고 황A7의 이 사건 전면광고 게재 및 시국대회 참여 독려행위, 이 사건 릴레이광고 행위에 대하여 중징계 의결을 요구하였다.

(2) 부산광역시 인사위원회는 2009. 10. 8. 원고 황A7의 위 행위가 지방공무원법 제48조(성실의 의무), 제49조(복종의 의무), 제55조(품위유지의 의무), 제58조(집단행 위의 금지), 구 공무원노조법 제3조(노동조합 활동의 보장 및 한계), 제4조(정치활동의 금지) 규정을 위반한 것이라고 보아 감봉 1월 처분을 의결하였고, 피고 강▲ 구청장은 2009. 10. 27. 감봉 1월의 징계처분을 하였다.

(3) Plaintiff Yellow A7 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, and the said commission rendered a decision to change the above disposition to the reprimand on February 2, 2010, and the Plaintiff Park Ga8

(1) 피고 ★구청장은 2009. 9. 1. 부산광역시 인사위원회 위원장에게 원고 박A8의 이 사건 전면광고 게재 및 시국대회 참여 독려행위, 이 사건 릴레이광고 행위에 대하여 중징계 의결을 요구하였다.

(2) 부산광역시 인사위원회는 2009. 10. 8. 원고 박A8의 위 행위가 지방공무원법 제48조(성실의 의무), 제49조(복종의 의무), 제55조(품위유지의 의무), 제58조(집단행 위의 금지), 구 공무원노조법 제3조(노동조합 활동의 보장 및 한계), 제4조(정치활동의 금지) 규정을 위반한 것이라고 보아 감봉 1월 처분을 의결하였고, 피고 ★구청장은 2009. 10. 29. 감봉 1월의 징계처분을 하였다.

(3) Although Plaintiff Park Park Dong-hh requested an appeal review to the Busan Metropolitan City appeals review committee on the above disposition, the said committee dismissed it on February 2, 2010.

(j) Plaintiff Park 9

(1) On September 8, 2009, the head of the Defendant would request the chairman of the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee for Food and Drug Safety to make a decision on severe disciplinary action against the act of attaching Plaintiff Park Gamba9’s Stack Stackers, encouraging him to participate in the national assembly, and advertising of the instant crylate.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided on the reduction of salary for one month by deeming that the above act of the plaintiff Park Jong-A9 violated the provisions of Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), 58 (Prohibition of Collective Conduct), 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities) and 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Local Public Officials Act, and decided on the reduction of salary for one month. The defendant head of the Gu was subject to a disciplinary measure for one month of salary reduction on October 27, 2009.

(3) The Plaintiff Park A9 filed an appeal review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, but the said commission dismissed it on February 2, 2010.

k) Plaintiff Park 10

(1) On September 7, 2009, the defendant head of the Gu requested the chairperson of the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee for Food and Drug Organization to encourage the plaintiff Park Park10 to participate in the national conference, and the decision of heavy disciplinary action against the act of the pertinent piece of advertisement.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided on the reduction of salary for one month on the ground that the above act of the plaintiff Park Jong10 violated the provisions of Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), and 58 (Prohibition of Collective Action), Article 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and Article 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the former Public Officials Labor Union Act. The defendant head of the Gu was subject to the disposition of the reduction of salary for one month on November 5, 2009.

(3) Plaintiff Park 10 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, and the said commission rendered a decision on February 2, 2010 to change the above disposition to the reprimand. Plaintiff Kim 11)

(1) On September 1, 2009, the head of the Defendant requested the Chairperson of the Busan Metropolitan Personnel Committee to make a mid-term advertisement of Plaintiff Kim 11 for the publication of the instant front advertisement and the participation in the national conference, and a mid-term disciplinary resolution on the instant visible advertisement.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided that the above act of Plaintiff Kim A11 violated the provisions of Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), and 58 (Prohibition of Collective Action), Article 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and Article 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the former Public Officials Labor Union Adjustment Act, and decided that the reduction of salary for one month. The defendant head of the Gu was subject to the disposition of one-month reduction of salary on October 26, 2009.

(3) On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff Kim11 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, and the said commission rendered a decision to change the above disposition to the reprimand. Plaintiff Shin12

(1) 피고 ◆구청장은 2009.9.1. 부산광역시 인사위원회 위원장에게 원고 신A12의 이 사건 전면광고 게재 및 시국대회 참여 독려행위, 이 사건 릴레이광고 행위에 대하여 중징계 의결을 요구하였다.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided that the above actions of the Plaintiff New A12 violated the provisions of Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), and 58 (Prohibition of Collective Activities), Article 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and Article 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the former Public Officials' Labor Unions Act, and decided that the reduction of salary for one month. The Defendant head of the Gu was subject to the disposition of one-month reduction of salary on October 23, 2009.

(3) The Plaintiff New A12 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, and the said commission rendered a decision to change the above disposition to the reprimand on February 2, 2010; n) Plaintiff Park 13

(1) On September 1, 2009, the defendant head of the Gu requested the chairperson of the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee for Food and Drug Safety to make a resolution of heavy disciplinary action against Plaintiff Park Jong13’s act of publishing the instant full-time advertisement and encouraging the participation of the City Council.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided on the reduction of salary for one month on the ground that the above act of the plaintiff Park Jong13 violated the provisions of Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), 58 (Prohibition of Collective Action), 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Local Public Officials Act. The defendant head of the Gu was subject to the disposition of the reduction of salary for one month on November 2, 2009.

(3) Plaintiff Park 13 filed a petition review with the Busan Metropolitan City Appeals Commission on the above disposition, and the said commission rendered a decision on February 2, 2010 to change the above disposition to the reprimand. Plaintiff Kim 14

(1) On September 1, 2009, the head of the Gu requested the chairperson of the Busan Metropolitan Personnel Committee to make a decision on heavy disciplinary action against Plaintiff Kim14 on the publication of the instant full-time advertisement and the encouragement of participation in the national conference, and the act of the instant on-site advertisement.

(2) On October 8, 2009, the Busan Special Metropolitan City Personnel Committee decided that the above act of Plaintiff Kim14 violated the provisions of Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), and 58 (Prohibition of Collective Action), Article 3 (Guarantee and Limitation of Trade Union Activities), and Article 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the former Public Officials' Labor Unions Act, and decided on January of the reduction of salary. Defendant 1 was subject to the disposition of January of the reduction of salary on November 3, 2009.

(3) The plaintiff Kim 14 claimed the appeal review of the above disposition; Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 1 to 2; Eul evidence No. 3; Eul evidence No. 1 to 3; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 1 to 4; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 1 to 3; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 1 to 3; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 1 to 3; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 1 to 3; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 1 to 11; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 3; Eul evidence No. 1 to 2; Eul evidence No. 1 to 8; Eul evidence No. 1 to 2; Eul; Eul evidence No. 2-1 to 3; Eul evidence No. 1, 2-1 to 3; Eul evidence No. 2-1 to 2;

2. Whether each of the disciplinary actions in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

A) Although the Plaintiff Park 13 did not engage in any act with respect to the instant Simption, the disciplinary action of reprimand on the ground that there was the name of the Gu branch on the instant full-scale advertisement, etc. was unlawful by misunderstanding the facts.

B) Plaintiffs

(1) The disciplinary action against each of the plaintiffs is against the principle of prohibition of retroactive punishment, since Article 3(2) of the State Public Officials Service Regulations (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21861, Nov. 30, 2009) was retroactively applied after the holding of the instant national meeting.

(2) Each of the plaintiffs' actions does not constitute "political activities" prohibited under Article 4 of the former Public Officials' Labor Unions Act, and constitutes legitimate activities related to trade unions under Article 3 (1) of the same Act.

(3) Each of the plaintiffs' actions is not against the public interest prohibited by the main sentence of Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act, nor does it constitute a group activity that interferes with the performance of duties, but also does not constitute a legitimate activity related to a trade union under Article 3(1) of the former Public Officials' Labor Assistance Act.

(4) Since the Defendants’ order of duties based on the premise that the participation, etc. in the City of this case is illegal is not a justifiable official order, it does not violate the duty of good faith, duty of obey, and duty of maintaining dignity imposed in relation to legitimate duties.

2) Even if the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs were justifiable, in light of the following: (a) the plaintiffs’ acts are strong to be protected as acts within the scope of freedom of expression; (b) the plaintiffs’ acts are limited to three (3) persons attending the National Assembly of this case; (c) the rest of the plaintiffs did not have any record of participating in the assembly; (d) there was no record of being subject to disciplinary action before the instant disciplinary action; and (e) the disadvantages caused by the dismissal disposition against the plaintiffs Jeong and the demotion’s demotion’s demotion’s demotion’s demotion’s demotion’s demotion’s dismissal disposition are too harsh compared to the one-time participation in the assembly; and (e) the instant disciplinary action is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary power.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the existence of grounds for disciplinary action

A) Whether Plaintiff Park 13 participated in the instant national conference

According to the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff Park 13 was involved in the instant national conference in light of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted as a whole, and thus, Plaintiff Park 13’s assertion against this is without merit.

(1) There are 16 branches under the control of the D Busan Regional Headquarters, and the instant front-tier advertisement contains 16 names of all 16 branches, while the advertisement is displayed on the eight pages of the newspaper dated July 27, 2009 only 13 branches except the name of the Gu branch, the Gu branch, and the Gu branch.

(2) 위와 같이 이 사건 릴레이 광고에 부산지역본부 산하 지부 중 일부의 명칭만이 기재된 것은 ▷ 본부 또는 부산지역본부가 이 사건 릴레이 광고에 동참하기로한 지부의 명칭만을 기재한 데에 연유한 것으로 보인다.

(3) 원고 박A13이 ♣구지부를 대표하는 지부장임을 감안하면, 원고 박A13이

▷ 본부 또는 부산지역본부에 이러한 동참의사를 결정하여 전달하는 데 중추적인 역할을 하였을 것으로 추단할 수 있고, 달리 이 또는 D 부산지역본부가 원고 박A13의 동의 없이 이 사건 릴레이 광고 등의 행위를 하였다는 반증도 없다.

B) Whether each of the plaintiffs' actions constitutes grounds for disciplinary action

(1) As to the assertion that the principle of prohibition of retroactive punishment is against the principle of prohibition of retroactive punishment, the newly established provision that "the public official shall not object to the policies of the State or local government by taking advantage of the name of a group, joint life or organization as amended by Presidential Decree No. 21862 on November 30, 2009" was significant in this court. However, as seen earlier, the provision that the Defendants used as the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs is not the above service provision of local public officials. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is without merit without any need to examine the remaining issues.

(2) As to the assertion that “justifiable trade union activities” and “political activities” or “collective activities” are not prohibited.

(가) 구 공무원노조법 제1조, 제3조 제1항, 제4조, 제8조 제1항, 노동조합 및 노동관계 조정법 제2조 제4호의 규정 내용을 종합하여 볼 때, 구 공무원노조법 제3조 제1항의 '공무원의 노동조합과 관련된 정당한 활동'이라 함은 근로조건의 유지·개선 기타 근로자의 경제적·사회적 지위의 향상을 도모하기 위한 것이라고 해석된다.이 사건에서, 전교조의 2009. 6. 18.자 시국선언은 '촛불시위 수사’, ‘PD수첩 수사', '용산 화재사건', '남북관계 경색 등 현 정부의 정책을 비판하는 것이었고, ▷ 등 3개 공무원노조는 위 시국선언에 동조하면서 공동으로 시국선언을 할 것을 결정하였는데, 원고 정A는 이에 따라 ▷ 위원장으로서 이 사건 시국대회를 주도적으로 준비·개최하고 단상에 올라가 대회사로 “공무원들은 신문광고를 통해 시국선언을 하고 있다. 공무원 노조통합을 이뤄 민생민주를 위한 공무원노조로 거듭날 것이다”라고 연설하여 위 집회의 목적이 전교조 시국선언에 대한 정부의 고발·징계 조치의 철회요구 및 현 정부에 대한 정치적 비판임을 밝혔으며, 원고 김A1은 ▷ ♤장으로서 이 사건 시국대회를 주도적으로 개최하고 ▷ 부산지역본부의 깃발을 들고 시국대회 발언자들의 선창에 따라 구호를 제창하는 방법으로 위 규탄대회에 직접 참가하였으며, 나머지 원고들은 이 사건 전면광고 및 릴레이 광고를 통하여 전교조가 발표한 시국선언의 내용을 지지한다는 의사를 밝히고, 조합원들의 시국대회 참가를 독려하였다. 또한 이 사건 시국대회의 내용은 '온 국민의 시국선언으로 MB악법 저지하자', '시국 선언 탄압중단’, ‘4대강 죽이기 절대 안 돼' 및 ‘언론악법 저지’, ‘비정규직 해고 중단' 등이 담긴 구호, 피켓, 깃발, 정당 당보나 유인물, 집단 퍼포먼스, 정당 및 시민단체의 연설 등을 통한 정치적 주장으로 이루어졌다.

The above promotion process, contents, and plaintiffs' actions are the act of expressing political intent to exercise influence in the process of government policy decision by pressureing the government in connection with each political party and organization. It cannot be deemed as the act of maintaining and improving working conditions in the category of "justifiable trade union activities" under Article 3 (1) of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act and promoting the improvement of workers' economic and social status.

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff’s above act constitutes “political activity” prohibited under Article 4 of the former Public Officials’ Union Act in light of the following:

In other words, Article 4 of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act provides that "no trade union and its members shall engage in political activities." ① Under Article 37 (2) of the Constitution, the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act limits the scope of activities of public officials' labor unions in principle to activities for the improvement of economic and social status, such as remuneration, welfare, and other working conditions of public officials' labor unions or their members, taking into account the characteristics of duties and status of public officials, influence of public officials' freedom and rights, etc., and excludes matters concerning decision-making conducted by the State or local governments under their authority, such as the exercise of the right to appoint, which are not directly related to working conditions (Articles 3 and 8 of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act). ② Even though the prohibition of "political activities" under the State Public Officials' Labor Union Act and the Local Public Officials' Labor Union Act, it does not limit the scope of political activities to political activities by separately prescribing that public officials' political activities are prohibited under Article 4 of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act, and it does not include political activities and political activities that are prohibited under Article 4 of the former Act.

(C) However, with respect to prohibited collective action, the main sentence of Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall engage in collective action for any labor campaign or any other work other than public service," and the term "labor movement" means the act based on three labor rights, such as the right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve workers' working conditions. Thus, the term "collective action for any work other than public service" is interpreted as "collective action for any work not belonging to public service."

공무원이 하는 모든 집단행위를 말하는 것이 아니라, 언론·출판·집회·결사의 자유를 보장하고 있는 헌법 제21조 제1항과 지방공무원법의 입법취지, 지방공무원법상의 성실의무와 직무전념의무 등에 비추어 ‘공익에 반하는 목적을 위하여 직무전념의무를 해태하는 등의 영향을 가져오는 집단적 행위'로 평가되는 행위를 말한다(대법원 2004. 10. 15. 선고 2004도5035 판결, 대법원 2007. 9. 6. 선고 2005도4199 판결 등 참조).이 사건에서, 원고 정A는 촛불시위 수사’, ‘PD수첩 수사', '용산 화재사건', '남북관계 경색’ 등을 언급하면서 현 정부의 공권력 남용으로 기본적 인권이 심각하게 훼손되어 민주주의의 위기가 초래되었고, 이는 현 정부의 독단과 독선적 정국운영에서 비롯되었다는 주장으로 이루어진 전교조의 시국선언을 지지하고, 3개 공무원노조가 공동으로 시국선언할 것을 결정하는 한편, 이 사건 전면광고 게재 및 산하 본부 및 지부에 이 사건 릴레이 광고, 현수막 게시 등 이 사건 시국대회 참여를 독려하는 활동을 하도록 지침을 시달함으로써 ▷ 소속 공무원들이 이 사건 시국대회에 참석하게 하였을 뿐 아니라 직접 시국대회 대회사를 연설하였고, 원고 김A1은 ▷ 장으로서 ▷ 지도부의 지침을 하부 지부에 전달하고 이 사건 시국대회를 주도적으로 개최하는 한편, 직접 ▷부산지역본부 깃발을 들고 시국대회에 참여하였으며, 나머지 원고들은 ▷ 하부 지부의 지부장으로서 D 지도부의 지침에 따라 릴레이 광고 등을 통하여 조합원들의 시국대회 참여를 독려함으로써 당시 시국상황 인식을 둘러싼 갈등과 혼란을 유발하고, 공무원의 정치적 중립성에 대한 국민의 신뢰에 부정적인 영향을 미쳤다. 이러한 사정에 비추어 볼 때 원고들의 그 주된 목적은 근로조건 개선에 있는 것이 아니고, 정부를 압박하면서 정부정책에 반대하는 주장을 관철시키기 위한 데에 있었고, 이는 집단적 정치활동임과 동시에 공무원의 정치적 중립성을 침해하는 것이다.

Therefore, the above acts of the plaintiffs constitute "collective acts that affect the duty of care for the purpose of violating the public interest", and it does not change even if the meeting of this case was held on holidays.

(3) The duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act is the most fundamental duty imposed on public officials to ensure the public interest and to prevent disadvantages, and to faithfully perform their duties in order to ensure the utmost public interest and conscience. The duty of the maintenance of dignity under Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act requires public officials to lead a sound life not only in relation to their duties but also in their private areas, since the act of the dignity of public officials is likely to undermine the people's trust in the public service society by widely being entrusted with public duties by the people, and thus, in light of the status of public officials who work for the whole public, the duty of the maintenance of dignity under Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act requires public officials to engage in a sound life as well as in their duties. The term "personality" here refers to a person who is a sovereign authority, and thus, is a public official's act of political expression to exercise influence in the decision-making process in connection with a specific political party or political power.

The same shall apply to a violation of the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity.

In addition, even though it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to have an opportunity to interfere with their duties in performing the wrongful acts of this case, the duty of good faith of public officials who shall faithfully perform their duties with all character and conscience in order to promote public interest and prevent disadvantages to the maximum extent possible, is limited to their duty not to engage in an act that adversely affects the fairness of their duties and is highly likely to infringe on the trust of the people. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendants' participation in the national conference or not to conduct their public relations activities constitutes legitimate order, and that the plaintiffs' conduct in violation of such duty is also a violation of the duty of obey as stipulated in the Local Public Officials Act

2) Determination of disciplinary action

A) Determination criteria

When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, it shall be placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, the disciplinary measure as a person having authority to take the disciplinary measure is illegal only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the discretion vested in the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, and the public official is

If the disciplinary action against the disciplinary action has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it should be determined that the contents of the disciplinary action can be objectively and clearly unfair when comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary action, the administrative purpose intending to achieve through the disciplinary action, and the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary action, depending on the specific cases. Even if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary action is left at the discretion of the appointing authority, it is against the public interest principles that should exercise the authority to take the disciplinary action for the public interest purpose or is against the principle of excessive disciplinary action, which goes against the principle of proportionality or violates the principle of equality by selecting the excessive disciplinary action that goes against the standards that are generally applied to the same degree of flight without justifiable grounds, and thus violates the principle of equality.

B) In the case of Plaintiff Jeong-A:

개인이든 집단이든 자신의 의사를 표현하고 정책결정 과정에 영향력을 행사할 때 지켜야 하는 법적 한계가 있음에도, 실정법을 위반하면서까지 자신의 정치적 의사를 표현하는 것은 민주사회로 나가기 위하여 필수적으로 요청되는 적법 절차를 부정하는 것으로서 비난 가능성이 적다고 할 수 없으며 더욱이 이 사건 시국대회를 주도적으로 추진하고 직접 대회사를 하는 등 ▷ 위원장으로서 맡은 역할에 비추어 보면, 원고 정A에 대하여는 엄정한 책임이 요구된다고 볼 여지도 있다.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the pleadings, the dismissal of a public official by the head of the Defendant’s head of the Si/Gun/Gu who deprived of his status only for reasons such as the leading of the Si/Gu conference which is the grounds for disciplinary action is deemed illegal as exceeding the bounds of discretionary power granted to the person with authority

(1) Article 70 of the Local Public Officials Act lists expulsion, dismissal, demotion, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand as a kind of disciplinary action. The Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Provisions include removal, dismissal, demotion, heavy disciplinary action, reduction of salary, and reprimand. If a local public official is dismissed by a disciplinary action, it shall not only be deprived of his status as a public official, but also be subject to any disadvantage that may not be appointed as a public official unless three years have passed since he was dismissed under Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 31 of the Local Public Officials Act.

② The name of support and the content of the speech at the time of the instant national conference, which was announced by the Plaintiff Jeong-A, did not per se contain any unconstitutional or anti-social elements, and the process was conducted in a relatively less manner, rather than strike or occupation, and the impact on society was not aimed at promoting personal interests.

③ Although the Public Officials’ Labor Union Adjustment Act, which provides for matters concerning the establishment and operation of a public official’s trade union, was enacted on January 27, 2005 and implemented, the scope and limit of the activities of the public official’s trade union still remains unclear, there are various opinions about whether the freedom of expression that public official enjoy as a citizen is permitted to a certain extent when it conflicts with the political neutrality that public official should keep as a servant of all citizens. As such, it is difficult for the above Plaintiff to make a judgment on where and to what extent

④ 원고 정A가 이 사건 해임처분 당시까지 20년여 동안 내무부장관 포상, 부산광역시장 포상 각 1회 받을 정도로 평소 근면 성실하게 근무하여 왔고, 징계를 받은 전력도 전혀 없었던 점에서, 이 사건 비위행위는 개인적 성향에서 비롯된 측면보다는 ▷ 위원장의 지위에서 비롯된 측면이 더 크다고 보이는바, 원고 정A가 ▷ 위원장으로 활동하면서 위와 같은 부정적 효과만 있었던 것은 아니고 긍정적 효과도 있었을 터인데 긍정적 효과에 대한 평가가 누락되어 있고, D의 불법 행동에 대한 책임을 > 대표자 개인에게 할당하는 것이 허용되어야 함은 분명하지만, 책임 할당에 한계가 있다는 점 또한 분명하며, 이러한 생각은, 원고 정A와 비교하여 징계전력 측면에서 책임요소가 중한 원고 김A1이 강등처분을 받고, 나머지 원고들이 경징계에 그쳤다는 점을 확인하면서 더욱 절실하게 든다.

⑤ 징계권자인 피고 구청장도 2010. 11. 16. ‘원고 정A가 그 동안 성실 근면하게 공무를 수행하여 왔고, ▷ 위원장으로 활동하면서 공무원들의 권익신장에 노력하였다'는 내용의 탄원서를 제출하면서 선처를 호소하였다.

(6) It is also necessary to take into account the favorable circumstances in which the facts charged for the same crime as the instant disciplinary cause were charged and the court of first instance sentenced to a fine capable of maintaining the status of a public official.

7. Where it is clear that the Plaintiff Party has committed an error but is dismissed from office that deprives of the status of a public official, the opportunity to reflect his/her mistake shall also be forfeited.

C) The remaining plaintiffs

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire arguments, i.e., ① the acts of the above plaintiffs are active political activities rather than merely a claim against the disciplinary policy of the government or a local government, ② the acts of the above plaintiffs are not affected by the job fairness of public officials and the trust of the people. ③ The remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff Kim A1 are in minor disciplinary actions, ④ the defendant Kim A1 wanting to be informed to the maximum extent possible on November 26, 2010. However, since they had the record of being subject to the heavy disciplinary action on May 24, 2005, it cannot be deemed that each of the above plaintiffs' actions against the above plaintiffs would be deemed to be a violation of discretionary authority, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that there is a history of being subject to the heavy disciplinary action on May 24, 2005.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff Jeong's claim is justified, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and associate judge;

Judges' Quota

Judges Choi Young-chul