The meaning of "when work performance is extremely poor due to a serious lack of ability to perform duties" under Article 70 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act, which is the reason for ex officio dismissal.

Of the grounds for ex officio dismissal stipulated in Article 70 of the State Public Officials Act, when the service record is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of ability to perform the duties under Article 78 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act means when the service record is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of ability to perform duties by mental and physical means, in light of the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 78 (1) of the Act, which prescribes the grounds for disciplinary action against the public officials, and the act of violating orders falling under grounds for disciplinary action, violating duties, neglecting duties, or impairing the body or dignity of a public official, etc.

Article 70 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu191 Decided July 13, 1982, 82Nu504 Decided April 26, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu218 Decided February 26, 1985

Plaintiff

Minister of Government Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu258 delivered on June 21, 1985

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu218 Decided February 26, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The case holding that the court below's determination that it is hard to find that the plaintiff's work performance had been considerably poor due to the lack of physical work performance by the President No. 1, 70 of the State Public Officials Act. It is hard to find that the plaintiff's work performance had been considerably poor due to the lack of physical work performance by the President No. 1, 7 of the same Act, and that the plaintiff's work performance had not been interfered with the plaintiff's work performance under the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 78 (1) of the same Act "when he violated his duty or neglected his duty", and that "when he did not perform his duty," the plaintiff's work performance had been considerably poor due to mental and physical lack of capacity to properly deal with his work, such as violation of orders applicable to disciplinary reasons, violation of duty, or violation of duty, or violation of good faith of the public official, and that the plaintiff's officer's duty to take active measures to prevent the plaintiff's work performance as a member of the court below's dismissal of 1, 1982.

Therefore, even if all facts of the court below are true, it is just to accept the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the appeal on the ground that it is not a ground for ex officio dismissal, and no illegality can be found. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal to the court below that there is an error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to ex officio dismissal, omission of judgment and incomplete hearing, and lack of reasoning.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)