(a) Whether liaison by telephone calls for the holding of the disciplinary committee is effective as notification of attendance under Article 12 (1) of the Punishment of Fire Officials Act;

(b) The case which held that a statement submitted prior to the date designated by the disciplinary committee shall be deemed to be a waiver of statement under Article 12 (3) of the Fire Officials Disciplinary Decree; and

(c) Whether a written waiver of the statement is possible to conduct a documentary examination under Article 12(4) of the Fire Officials Disciplinary Decree;

A. The purport of Article 12(1) of the Fire Officials Disciplinary Decree stipulating that a person subject to disciplinary deliberation must give notice of attendance in the prescribed form to the person subject to disciplinary deliberation is to ensure that the person subject to disciplinary deliberation has given the person under disciplinary action an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee. Thus, if it is certain to give such notice, any means other than that should be avoided, and if the person subject to disciplinary deliberation talks by telephone, the notice of the date of the disciplinary committee is legitimate.

B. Even if there is a waiver of the statement that was prepared and submitted before the date of the disciplinary committee's designation, it would be the chairman of the disciplinary committee, who was investigated by the Director General of the Public Security Headquarters, and it was predicted that there was a request for the disciplinary resolution due to the misconduct against him, and that he was prepared for the purpose of the deliberation by the disciplinary committee, and submitted and kept to the competent head of the competent division. If he was notified of the date of deliberation by the disciplinary committee and did not appear on that date, and if he responded by telephone to the deliberation by the above statement, the waiver of the statement constitutes a waiver of statement under Article 12(3) of the Fire Officials Disciplinary Decree

(c) When a person to be disciplined under Article 12(4) of the Fire Officials Disciplinary Decree fails to appear on two or more occasions, a provision that may conduct a written hearing shall be applied to the person who does not want to attend and submits a written waiver of his statement.

(a) Article 12(1) and (2) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Fire Officials;

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu636 delivered on April 4, 1983

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The reasoning of the judgment below is that the plaintiff's prior notification of disciplinary action was made to the above 2 p.m. Fire Executive Officer No. 1 and the above 3 p.m. Fire Executive Officer No. 2 before the above 3 p.m. Fire Executive Officer No. 4 p. 20 p.m. on April 20, 1982, and the defendant's prior notification of disciplinary action No. 4 p.m. on April 27, 1982 to the plaintiff 2 p.m. Fire Executive Officer No. 3 p. 200 p.m. who violated the above 8 p.m. Fire Executive Officer No. 4 p. 200 p.m. and the above 4 p.m. Fire Executive Officer No. 2000 p.m. on April 27, 1982, the plaintiff 200 p.m. Fire Executive Officer No. 98 p. 200 p.m., the plaintiff 200 p.m.

The purport of Article 12 (1) of the Fire Officials Disciplinary Decree provides that when the disciplinary committee orders a person subject to the disciplinary deliberation to attend, a notice according to the prescribed form shall be given to the person subject to the disciplinary deliberation. Thus, if it is clear that a person subject to disciplinary action has given an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee, other methods would be unnecessary. As such, such as the approval of the court below, if a public official of a mid-to long-term fire officer called the plaintiff for the meeting of the disciplinary committee and visited the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not attend the meeting, and if he sent the notice that the date should be postponed, the notification of the date shall be deemed to have been delivered properly.

In addition, according to the records, although the plaintiff's waiver of statement was made before the date of the disciplinary committee is designated, it is clear that it was made before the date of the disciplinary committee, and there is no evidence to deem that this waiver was made against the plaintiff's will. According to the purport of the party's oral argument, the plaintiff prepared the above waiver of statement and submitted it to the chief of the fire-fighting division under his jurisdiction for the purpose of the deliberation of the disciplinary committee's disciplinary committee's disciplinary committee's disciplinary committee's disciplinary action after being investigated by the investigation team at the public security headquarters for the suspicion of bribery against the plaintiff's will. In addition, according to the purport of the party's oral argument, the plaintiff prepared the above waiver of statement and submitted it to the chief of the fire-fighting division under his jurisdiction for the purpose of the deliberation of the disciplinary committee's disciplinary action committee's disciplinary action committee's disciplinary action, such as the decision of the court below, and the statement waiver of statement was made by telephone to be deliberated by the already

In addition, Article 12 (4) of the same Decree provides that if a person subject to disciplinary action does not attend two or more times, it may be examined in writing. This provision is a provision when the written waiver of statement is not submitted without wanting to attend, and the above request for extension of the date cannot be viewed as having the intention to attend on the deferred date, and it is merely a desire to delay the date of disciplinary action.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that there was an error in the procedure despite the absence of any error in the decision procedure of the above disciplinary committee, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disciplinary procedure, and it is clear that the illegality affected the result of the decision, which is therefore justified in this regard.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)