Whether an ex officio dismissal order issued by the Minister of National Defense after the notice of cancellation of employment by the U.S. military personnel on the part of the U.S. military in Korea who are Korean civilian employees performing special duties while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces in Korea

In general, unlike other military service, if the number of copies of North Korea's voice communications is separately managed and immediately dismissed from office, and the translation is paid to North Korea's voice communications from the USF to the English translation and transfer them in the English language, the original three-year term of office was newly appointed by the military unit for the first three-year term of office. After the military speed system was reorganized into a civilian military employee system in the US, the employment period of the USF was regarded as the term of office, and the employment cancellation notice was given to the USF, the above translator was retired from office at the expiration of the term of office without requiring separate administrative disposition by the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the said translation, and the above ex officio dismissal notice issued by the Minister of National Defense with respect to the said translator is merely a notification of the grounds and timing of his/her retirement as a matter of law, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal, as it is a new formative act that loses the status

Article 28(1)3 of the Act on the Management of Civilian Personnel in the Military Service, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general], Articles 2, 4, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu2622 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987, 1140), Supreme Court Decision 94Da12852 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2976), Supreme Court Decision 93Da5425 delivered on January 20, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 882), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4305 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2380)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorneys Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Minister of National Defense and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu14324 delivered on December 19, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed. The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment on the grounds of appeal shall be made ex officio.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant, who was notified, dismissed the employment of the plaintiffs on the ground of the reduction in the budget of the US Armed Forces, was a civilian military employee whose term of office was completely amended by Act No. 3342 of December 31, 1980, and then dismissed the employment of the plaintiffs on the ground of the reduction in the budget of the US Armed Forces. The court below acknowledged that the defendant, who was notified, issued an ex officio appointment order to the plaintiffs on the grounds of the reduction in the budget of the US Armed Forces, was dismissed on the ground that the termination of employment of the said US Armed Forces was a civilian military employee who was dispatched to the US Armed Forces and was dispatched to the US Armed Forces, and worked in the US translation and transfer of North Korea's voice communications in English, for three-year translations of the term of office paid by the US Armed Forces in the course of performing special duties in English. The court below determined that the dismissal of employment of the said US Armed Forces constitutes ex officio dismissal (the reduction in the number of office, reduction in the number of budget, etc.).

However, as acknowledged by the court below, if the plaintiffs were to be appointed under the military service for the first three years and the military service system was reorganized into a civilian military employee system, and thereafter the military service personnel system was deemed to have been appointed under the term of office for the US Armed Forces employees, the plaintiffs retired ipso facto from office at the expiration of the term of office without any separate administrative disposition taken by the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss to extinguish the civilian military employee relationship, and the above ex officio dismissal order issued by the defendants against the plaintiffs is merely a notification of the concept of the legal retirement grounds and the time of notification to the public regardless of their literal expressions, and it is not a new formative act to lose the status of civilian employees (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2622, Jun. 9, 1987; 96Nu4305, Jun. 27, 1997, etc.).

Therefore, even though the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of a personnel order, which merely notifies the above fact of ipso facto retirement, is unlawful, and it is apparent that its defects cannot be corrected, the court below, without regard to this issue, judged the legitimacy of the order on the premise that the above personnel order is an administrative disposition. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the administrative disposition, which is the object of appeal litigation.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this court is deemed to be sufficient to render a judgment based on the facts established by the court below, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as seen above, and the total cost of the lawsuit is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)