The nature of the request for a new disciplinary resolution after the disciplinary action is revoked by administrative litigation.

If a disciplinary action was revoked due to excessive disciplinary action during the lawful period of time, but the disciplinary action was again requested to reduce the kind of disciplinary action, this is not a new demand for disciplinary action, but a partial revision of the disciplinary action that has already been requested to be legally. Thus, it can be made even after two years have passed from the date of the occurrence of the disciplinary action.

Articles 83, 83-2(2), and 83-2(3) of the former State Public Officials Act (Law No. 2460, Feb. 5, 1973)

Supreme Court Decision 73Nu12 Decided September 25, 1973

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries shall guide the litigation performers, Kim Jong-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu362 delivered on February 27, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

This disposition is based on the request for decision made after the lapse of the prescription period of two years, and thus becomes void as the judgment of the court below did not determine it, it is the summary of the argument that there is an error of law such as omission of judgment, incomplete hearing, and lack of reasoning in the judgment of the court below.

In light of the purport of Articles 83 and 83-2(2)(3) of the State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 2460, Feb. 5, 1973) applicable to this case, if the removal disposition was revoked on the grounds of excessive disciplinary action, as in this case, due to the proposal of administrative litigation against the removal disposition within a lawful period of time, it is clear that the prescription period of the disciplinary action has not elapsed since the lapse of two years since the date of the occurrence of the disciplinary cause.

In this regard, the appeal review committee or the court has made a decision or judgment of invalidation or revocation of a disciplinary action on the ground of the defect in the composition of the disciplinary committee, resolution or other procedure.In addition, the appeal review committee or the court's decision cannot be adopted in this case on the ground of the provision that the resolution of disciplinary action can be requested in multiple times, and therefore, the decision of the court below cannot be adopted in this case on the ground of the provision that the decision of the court below cannot be adopted in this case, and there

The issue is groundless.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the illegality of ship inspection and issuance of seaman's pocket ledger as a ground for the reduction of the salary in this case, and judged it as a violation of the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, and judged it as a violation of the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act. Furthermore, considering the contents and degree of the disciplinary violation like the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the defendant's salary reduction disposition against the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a deviation from the scope of discretionary power as to the decision of disciplinary action. In light of the evidence of the judgment below, the court below's findings of fact is justified and it is not necessary to consider the nature of No. 2-1 and No. 2 (each decision) as to this case, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be recognized that the judgment of the court below erred

The essay is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)