A. Whether a discipline accused person’s family member who does not live together with his family members and whose domicile or whereabouts are not known at his home (negative), and whether a discipline accused person refused to receive the subsequent notice of attendance on the ground that his whereabouts becomes unknown after receiving the first notice of attendance or his family member refuses to receive the notice of attendance (negative)

B. Whether a disciplinary suspect may decide on disciplinary action only by a documentary examination where it is deemed that he/she has waived his/her right to make a statement or refused to receive a written notice of attendance (affirmative)

A. In light of the fact that a discipline accused person does not live together with his family members at the time of serving a notice of attendance and does not know his whereabouts at his domicile or main family, the disciplinary committee's notice of attendance against the accused person cannot be deemed lawful unless there are special circumstances, such as the accused person's family members who received the notice of attendance actually deliver the accused person's purport to the accused person. It is difficult to view that the accused person refused to receive the notice of attendance after the accused person received the first notice of attendance, or his family members refused to receive the notice of attendance.

B. The disciplinary committee may decide on disciplinary action against a discipline accused person only by a documentary examination without the need of the disciplinary committee to give notice to him/her when it is deemed that the disciplinary committee gives him/her an opportunity to make a statement even though the disciplinary committee gives him/her an opportunity to make a statement, in cases where it is deemed that he/she gives up his/her right to make a statement or refuses to receive a notice of attendance.

Article 50 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 8 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu277 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983,1510) 84Nu251 delivered on October 8, 1985 (Gong1985,1482) 91Nu961 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992,2425) 2. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu298 delivered on October 26, 1982 (Gong1983,57)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Attorney Bae-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu1422 delivered on May 13, 1992

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the designated parties 4, 3, and 2 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

All appeals filed by the Plaintiff, 8, 5, 7, and 6 are dismissed.

The costs of appeal to which the appeal is dismissed shall be borne by the Plaintiff, 8, 5, 7, 6, etc.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff and the designated parties 8, 5, 7, 6, 4, and 3 were notified of the attendance of the disciplinary committee as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the procedure was legitimate even if the plaintiff and the designated parties were not present at the disciplinary committee or refused to receive the notice of attendance of the disciplinary committee, even if they were to receive the notice of attendance of the first disciplinary committee at the time, and the second disciplinary committee's notice of attendance was received directly or jointly by the plaintiff and the designated parties, and the second disciplinary committee did not attend the disciplinary committee or refused to receive the notice of attendance.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as to the plaintiff, 8, 5, 7, and 6 are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

However, according to the above 4th, 3th, 16 through 21, and 34-2, 24 through 27, etc., the notice of attendance of the 9th Disciplinary Committee was received by the above 10th, which was held on July 25, 1989 by the 10th, and the 10th, 4th, which was held on August 3, 1989, was not sent to the 10th, Nowon-gu ( Address 1 omitted) where the 10th, which was the above 10th, was not sent to the 10th, and it was difficult for the 10th, the above 10th, who was present at the 3th, to be present at the 19th, which was not sent to the 3th, the above 10th, who was present at the 19th, and the 10th, who was still present at the 10th,000,000's family members.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding that the aforementioned designated parties did not appear even after receiving the second disciplinary committee's notice of attendance or refused to receive it was erroneous in misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or finding facts without any evidence, and such misunderstandings affected the judgment. The allegation pointing this out has merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to Article 50(3) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Articles 8(1), 3(7), and 9(2) of the Disciplinary Decree of the Public Educational Officials Act, a disciplinary decision that did not give a discipline accused person an opportunity to make a statement shall become null and void, and when the disciplinary committee orders a discipline accused person to appear, a disciplinary decision may be made only by means of a documentary examination after submitting a written waiver of his/her statement if the discipline accused person does not wish to make a statement at the disciplinary committee. If the discipline accused person refuses to receive a written notice of his/her appearance, a disciplinary decision may be made only by documentary examination if the disciplinary committee provides that he/she gives a discipline accused person an opportunity to make a statement. Thus, a notice of attendance to the discipline accused person is aimed at giving him/her an opportunity to make a statement or giving him/her an opportunity to submit documentary evidence, and if the disciplinary committee deems that he/she waives his/her right to make a statement or refuses to receive a written notice of attendance after giving him/her an opportunity to make a disciplinary decision on the discipline person.

Nevertheless, the court below held that it was unlawful to hold a disciplinary committee and make a decision on disciplinary action by document document only on August 12, 1989 without any further notice of attendance at the second disciplinary committee and held that the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 50(3) of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 8(1), 3, and 7 of the Decree on the Punishment of Public Educational Officials, and that such illegality affected the judgment. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the Appointors 4, 3, and Appointors 2 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below, and all appeals by the plaintiff and the remaining Appointors shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal to which the appeal is dismissed shall be assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)