If the confession is made in the disciplinary procedure and the confession is denied in the subsequent litigation procedure, whether the confession alone recognizes the facts of flight

Even if a person to be disciplined has led to a confession of the fact of misconduct required for a disciplinary decision in the disciplinary procedure, if the confession is denied in the procedure of the subsequent litigation, and if the person asserts that it is impossible to perform the act of misconduct such as the confession, the truth of the confession should be clarified through the deliberation of this point, and without doing so, it is not sufficient to find out the fact of the confession alone.

Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Regional Railroad

Gwangju High Court Decision 79Gu37 delivered on November 12, 1980

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff’s act of entering Nonparty 5’s name and Nonparty 4’s name on the 6th day of the 7th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 4th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 4th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the 6th day of the response; and (b) the 3th day of the 6th day of the response.

(2) However, when the plaintiff is investigated by the Audit Office of the Korea Railroad and when deliberation by the General Disciplinary Committee of the Korea National Railroad, he denies this flight by making a confession of all of the above flight facts such as the judgment below acknowledged at the time of deliberation by the Korea General Disciplinary Committee of the Korea National Railroad. The contact number No. 636 at the court below denied this flight by rejecting the statement from the time of the appeal, and the plaintiff also found the contact number No. 636 at the court below's response to the non-party 6 et al., who is the person in charge of the examination, and entered the contact number No. 636 at the time of the examination, and did not prepare the whole response No. 636 at the time of a strict control of the inspector, such as the written reasons for the resolution, and it was absolutely impossible for the plaintiff to make a replacement of the answer as stated in the above reasons for the resolution or to appropriate the seal of the inspector. The plaintiff's confession by the auditor or the Seoul National Railroad Disciplinary Committee of the Korea National Railroad is forced by the investigator.

I think that even if a person to be disciplined has led to a confession of the misconduct for which a disciplinary resolution was requested in the disciplinary procedure, if he argues that the confession is denied in the subsequent litigation procedure and that it is impossible to do so such as the confession, the authenticity of the confession should be clarified through the deliberation of this point, and it is impossible to recognize the fact of the confession only without doing so.

The plaintiff asserts that the situation of the chief prosecutor of the answer site at the time was absolutely impossible to replace the answer site using a blank answer site, such as a written resolution, and make an illegal use of the seal of the examiner, and affix the seal of the examiner. In addition, according to the result of the appraisal by the appraiser in the court below, the contact number No. 636, which the plaintiff prepared in the reason for the resolution, is different from the plaintiff's writing. Thus, the court below should examine whether the situation of the chief prosecutor of the answer site at the time was the same as the plaintiff's answer site at the time, although it should be examined whether the plaintiff's flight was sufficiently possible as stated in the reason for the resolution, the court below rejected the testimony and the result of appraisal of the above witness without any evidence compared to the non-party 6 and the non-party 4, and recognized the above fact by rejecting the testimony and appraisal of the above witness without any evidence. In this regard, it cannot be said that the court below's decision of evidence has a value-free discretion.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court for further proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)