The case holding that disciplinary proceedings are unlawful

The disciplinary committee was deprived of an opportunity for a disciplinary suspect to make a statement by receiving a written confirmation and a written waiver from the supervisor of the disciplinary authority who did not notify the disciplinary authority of the disciplinary action before receiving the request for disciplinary action from the person with authority to take the disciplinary action. Therefore, the disciplinary action based on the disciplinary action cannot be exempted due to its illegality in the procedure.

Articles 81 and 13 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 10 and Article 11 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu96 delivered on June 28, 1978 delivered on July 11, 1978

Ministry of Employment and Labor and one other

Busan Director of Regional Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu96 Decided June 28, 197)

The defendant's removal from office against the plaintiff on July 16, 1975 shall be revoked, respectively.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

On July 16, 1975, when the plaintiffs, who are public officials of the defendant Forea, who worked with the Busan District Tax Office, performed the corporate tax investigation for the business year on April 15, 1974 on the Jungdong Transport Co., Ltd. located in Jung-gu, Busan District Tax Office on the ground that he received honorarium from the non-party No. 5 who was the chief investigation team at that time, the plaintiff Non-party No. 1,00,000, and the Dong Kim Jong-dong's Kim were in violation of the duty of integrity as a public official, he requested the Busan District Tax Office General Disciplinary Committee to decide on the plaintiffs, and on July 16, 1975, the disciplinary committee did not notify the plaintiffs who were public officials of his attendance in writing, and on the ground that the defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff No. 1,000,000, he could not be decided by a written confirmation of acceptance of bribe from the prosecutor's office on the ground that the defendant No. 15, who is an employee belonging to the defendant No.

However, according to Article 82 of the State Public Officials Act, disciplinary action against a public official shall be conducted by the head of the agency to which he belongs after the resolution of the disciplinary committee, and according to Article 10 of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree, when the disciplinary committee orders a person under disciplinary action to appear, the disciplinary committee shall give the person under disciplinary action an opportunity to make a sufficient statement. According to Articles 11(2) and 81(3) and 13(2) of the State Public Officials Act, disciplinary action against a person under disciplinary action which does not give a person under disciplinary action an opportunity to make a statement. As seen above, the above disciplinary committee provided that disciplinary action against a person under disciplinary action shall be null and void. Thus, prior to receiving a request for disciplinary action from the defendant from the defendant, the above disciplinary committee did not inform the plaintiff of the disciplinary action and received a written waiver and written waiver from the above disciplinary committee. In other words, the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff, etc., who is the person under disciplinary action, is deprived of the opportunity to make a statement, and the above disciplinary action procedure is unlawful.

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff et al. seeking the cancellation of the above removal disposition is justified, and the burden of litigation costs is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Judges Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)