recently accepted cases (Attorneys Lee Won-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yeongdeungpo-gu Director General

July 7, 1982

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The dismissal of the defendant against the plaintiff as of June 11, 1981 shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) No. 1 (Evidence No. 2), No. 4, No. 1, No. 3, and No. 12-3, and No. 13-5 of the evidence No. 13, respectively, are considered to have been removed from the court room of Yeongdeungpo-gu without dispute. The non-party 1, who was admitted to the above 5-dong office of Yeongdeungpo-gu No. 5-dong No. 3, was removed from the court room of 00 and then was removed from the court of 10-dong No. 6, and then was removed from the court of 10-dong No. 3, No. 144444, May 22, 1981. The defendant, who was admitted to the above 1-dong No. 6444, No. 1, No. 1, 2005, was found to have been removed from the court of 1-dong No. 1, 2001.

(2) If the plaintiff was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 1st, 2nd, and June 3th, 198, the plaintiff was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 2nd, and the 1st, as well as the 2nd, the defendant was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 1st, 6th, and the 2nd, and the defendant was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 1st, 3rd, and the defendant was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 1st, 6th, and the 2nd, and the defendant was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 1st, 3rd, and the defendant was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 1st, 6th, and the 1st, second, the defendant was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 2nd, and the defendant was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 2nd, 6th, and the defendant was unable to conduct an autopsy on the 1st, second, the first, and second, the police officer's duty of care on the 1st, second, and second.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff’s negligence of duties became one of the causes for preventing the escape accident of this case, in light of the Plaintiff’s career as school officials, awards and decorations as well as various special circumstances alleged above, the removal of the Plaintiff from office is erroneous by exceeding the limit of disciplinary discretion. Thus, according to each of the evidence No. 5-1 through No. 5, and evidence No. 14, the Plaintiff was appointed as a school teacher on March 11, 1968 and was promoted to school teacher on February 21, 1980, and was given official commendation four times without any error, and the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff could not be acknowledged as being within the scope of the pertinent disciplinary authority based on the following facts: (a) even though the Plaintiff’s negligence of duties was recognized as one of the causes for preventing the escape accident of this case; (b) in light of the background, method, and result of the escape accident of this case, it appears that the Plaintiff’s neglect of duties was too excessive and without any dispute, and (c) the Plaintiff’s removal of the Plaintiff’s disciplinary authority from office.

(4) If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation on the premise that the dismissal disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

August 18, 1982

Judges Yellowdon (Presiding Judge)