The meaning of "when work performance is extremely poor due to a serious lack of ability to perform duties" under Article 70 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act, which is a reason for ex officio dismissal.

Of the grounds for ex officio dismissal stipulated in Article 70 of the State Public Officials Act, when the service record is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of ability to perform the duties under Article 78 (1) 2 of the same Act, means when the service record is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of ability to perform mental and physical duties, in light of the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 78 (1) of the same Act, which prescribe the grounds for disciplinary action against the public official, and the act does not constitute a violation of orders falling under grounds for disciplinary action, a violation

Article 70 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu191 delivered on July 13, 1982 82Nu504 delivered on April 26, 1983

Plaintiff

Minister of Government Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu840 delivered on March 22, 1983

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below pointed out that the plaintiff was found to have worked as a general revenue collector (official) of the pension department of this case at the time of the ex officio dismissal. (1) The plaintiff was found to have been erroneous in excessively demanding the head of the agency responsible for the payment of pension in the second half of 1977, and the auditor of the Board of Audit and Inspection on the special accounts of public officials in Incheon City 357, 263,158,961 won without submitting documentary evidence. (2) The plaintiff was found to have failed to pay attention to the defendant at the time of 1979, and the plaintiff was found to have failed to pay contributions from the general revenue collector of this case at the time of 1979. (3) The plaintiff was found to have been found to have been found to have not been able to have been able to collect the contributions from the general revenue collector of the agency responsible for the payment of pension in the year 1979.

However, among the grounds stipulated in Article 70 of the State Public Officials Act, when the work performance is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of job performance by the ex officio dismissal, in light of the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 78 (1) of the same Act, which provides for the disciplinary reasons for the public official's work performance, means when the work performance is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of ability to properly perform duties by mental and physical means, and the violation of orders falling under the grounds for disciplinary reasons, violation of official duties, or neglect of duties, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu191 delivered on July 13, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu504 delivered on April 26, 1983; 82Nu504 delivered on April 26, 1983). Among the facts confirmed by the court below, the facts of paragraphs (1) and (2) or (3) of Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act, which the plaintiff did not fall under the grounds for ex officio dismissal, and thus, it can not fall under the grounds for ex officio dismissal.

The court below determined that there was a reason for ex officio dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ability to conduct the work rating from January 1, 1980 to June 30 of the year 197, and that there was a reason for dismissal on the ground that the work rating for the Plaintiff was defective, but according to the records, the Plaintiff was given an official commendation of the President (Evidence A 3) as well as the performance rating from January 1, 1979 to June 30 of the same year, and the work performance rating from July 1 to December 31 of the same year is "all number". According to the testimony of the witness Maap, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s subordinate employee did not have a special problem while on duty. Thus, even if the Plaintiff did not know that there was a lack of sufficient mental and physical ability to conduct work due to the work performance rating, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff could not perform the work performance rating immediately before and after the Plaintiff did not know of the change in circumstances.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding and decided that the ex officio dismissal disposition against the plaintiff is legitimate. There is a reason why the ex officio dismissal can not be a reason for the ex officio dismissal. In addition, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 70 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act, which led to an incomplete hearing, not examining whether the defective performance of work rating against the plaintiff is due to a significant lack of ability to properly perform duties by mental and physical means. Thus, the appeal on this issue is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)