The legality of disciplinary proceedings without legitimate notice of attendance under Article 8 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials;

Notice of attendance to a discipline accused person under Article 8 of the Decree on the Disciplinary Action of Public Educational Officials enacted by delegation of the Public Educational Officials Act is a compulsory provision that comes out from the measures to ensure that the discipline accused person becomes aware of the date on which the disciplinary action is held, to state the facts favorable to him/her or to give him/her an opportunity to submit evidentiary materials, and thus

Article 8 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Jong-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu248 delivered on July 30, 1986

After destroying the original judgment, the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

Article 8 of the Decree on the Disciplinary Punishment of Public Educational Officials, which was enacted by the delegation of the Public Educational Officials Act, provides that a discipline accused person's appearance notice shall be issued in writing on the ground that he/she becomes aware of the date of the commencement of the disciplinary action and at the same time when he/she states facts favorable to him/her or gives him/her an opportunity to submit evidential materials, so the disciplinary deliberation procedure without legitimate notice of attendance shall be illegal. Article 8 (2) of the above Decree provides that the disciplinary committee may send a notice of attendance to the head of the agency to which the discipline accused person belongs and deliver the notice of attendance if it is deemed difficult for him/her to do so due to unknown address or other reasons. Paragraph (4) of the above Article provides that where the discipline accused person fails to appear without justifiable cause even after receiving two or more notices of attendance, the disciplinary decision may be made in writing on the ground that he/she does not want his/her attendance, and Paragraph (6) of the above Article provides that the notice of attendance under paragraph (4) shall be made in the Official Gazette and it shall be served two or more times in the Official Gazette.

However, the court below held that the Superintendent of the Gyeongnam District Office of Education requested a resolution on April 10, 1985 to make a resolution and the Disciplinary Committee shall be held 10:00 on April 18, 198, and the Superintendent of the Ulsan District Education shall give an appearance notice to the plaintiff, and the above head of the District Education Office shall issue an appearance notice to the plaintiff, and the above head of the District Education Office shall order the plaintiff to deliver it to the plaintiff, and he shall not deliver the above Kim Yong-ran's house to the plaintiff 4.16, but he could not deliver it to the plaintiff's unknown whereabouts because he did not meet the plaintiff, and the date of holding the Disciplinary Committee on April 17, 1985 shall be changed to 10:00 on May 7, 1985, and at the same time, published

According to the above facts of determination of the court below, it is clear that the disciplinary decision of this case against the plaintiff was made without giving notice of attendance at the second bulletin as prescribed by Article 8 (6) (4) of the above Decree, and it is evident that the disciplinary decision of this case is unlawful as seen earlier. Thus, the court below's decision that the disciplinary decision of this case is legitimate on the ground that the disciplinary decision of this case is legitimate shall not be maintained. The court below's decision of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure for issuing notice of attendance to the disciplinary suspect as prescribed by the Decree of the Decree of the Punishment of Public Educational Officials, and the judgment of this case shall not be reversed without examining other points on the ground that this point is justified

Therefore, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the original judgment shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)