Whether the authorized person having authority to take disciplinary action can cancel or change the disciplinary action after the disciplinary action was executed as a disciplinary resolution.

After the disciplinary action is executed as a disciplinary decision, the person having authority to take disciplinary action shall not voluntarily cancel or change it, unless there are special circumstances, and the same applies to cases where there are defects in the contents of the disciplinary committee's resolution.

§ 78, 82, 75, and 76 of the State Public Officials Act

Kim Yong-right

Director General of the National Assembly of Japan

The defendant's removal from office against the plaintiff on March 29, 1978 shall be revoked. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details and details of the instant disposition

In light of the purport of the above evidence Nos. 3 through 10, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, 4-10, and 4,10 of the above evidence Nos. 2-1, the defendant's previous disposition of removal of the plaintiff from office on the ground that the plaintiff was removed from office on the 1st day of August 29, 197, the defendant's previous disposition of removal from office No. 68-4170 of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, which was ordered the plaintiff to be removed from office on the 2th day after the date of the appeal No. 4th day after the date of the appeal No. 1, the defendant's previous disposition of removal from office on the 19th day after the date of the appeal No. 4th day after the date of the appeal No. 3, the defendant's previous disposition of removal from office to the defendant's order of removal from office on the ground that the plaintiff was ordered to be removed from office on the 12th day after the date of the appeal No.2.

2. Claims by the parties and issues

According to the provisions of Article 19 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials and Article 2 of the Rules on Procedure of Appeal, the person having authority to take an action shall file an appeal against the appeals review committee within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice of disciplinary decision, or when the resolution is deemed minor, the person having authority to take an action shall file an appeal against the appeals review committee. Thus, the defendant shall not file an appeal against the agency dissatisfied with the decision of the disciplinary committee so long as the disciplinary action was taken against the resolution of the disciplinary committee, and as long as the plaintiff does not appeal against the decision within the appeal period, the disciplinary action shall become final and conclusive. Thus, the decision of the appeals review committee under the premise that the defendant's appeal against the final disciplinary action is legitimate, and the defendant's removal should be null and void, at least, and the defendant's removal shall be revoked and revoked as well as the fact that the plaintiff has received a request or bribe as the grounds for disciplinary action against the defendant's head. Thus, the defendant asserted that the dismissal disposition in this case is unlawful without examining the authority of the disciplinary committee's decision.

Therefore, the issue in this case is whether the procedure of a petition filed by the defendant is legitimate, whether the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff, and whether the disciplinary action is legitimate.

3. Determination

First, it is examined whether the defendant's appeal procedure is legitimate or not.

According to Articles 78 and 82 of the State Public Officials Act, if there is a prescribed disciplinary cause, the person having authority over disciplinary measures shall request the competent disciplinary committee to make a disciplinary resolution, and if it is deemed that a disciplinary resolution is light following the disciplinary resolution, the person having authority over disciplinary measures may request an review to the appeals review committee before taking the disciplinary measures. According to Articles 75 and 76 of the same Act, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a public official, the person having authority over disciplinary measures shall issue an explanatory note stating the reason for the disciplinary measure, and if a public official who has received it is dissatisfied with the disciplinary measure, the person having authority over disciplinary measures may request an review to the appeals review committee within 20 days from the date of receipt of the disciplinary measure. Articles 18 and 19 of the Decree of the Public Officials Disciplinary Action Decree shall, without delay, notify the person who has authority over disciplinary measures, along with an authentic copy of the disciplinary measure, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the written disciplinary resolution, and if the person having authority over disciplinary measures and the person who has received the disciplinary measure can request within 10 days from the date of disciplinary action.

Therefore, after the disciplinary action was executed as a result of the disciplinary decision, there is no provision that permits the cancellation or change of the disciplinary action by the person having authority to take an action, and in particular, Article 82 (2) of the State Public Officials Act provides that "the person having authority to take an action may request an review to the appeals review committee before taking the action" shall not voluntarily cancel or change it unless there are special circumstances, and the same applies to the case where there is a defect in the contents of the disciplinary decision as argued by the defendant.

Therefore, since the above application filed by the defendant violates each of the above provisions, it should be dismissed as an appeal review committee, and it should be resolved in accordance with the purport of the appeal, and the above defects should not be cured, and the decision of the appeals review committee under the premise that the defendant's appeal is legitimate, and the defendant's dismissal or unlawful disposition based thereon cannot be exempted.

In the end, it is reasonable to view that the disposition of cancellation of the defendant's conviction against the disciplinary action in April 10, 1978, which was taken by the defendant on January 10, 1978, is null and void as an act of no authority, and therefore, the initial disciplinary action is still valid, and it is reasonable to view that it was finalized upon the lapse of twenty

Therefore, the defendant's removal of this case cannot avoid the revocation as an illegal disposition without complying with the existence of the grounds for the disciplinary action. The plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-hun