(a) Whether tax-free dispositions are appropriate for a disciplinary decision made on the postponed date without giving notice of attendance to the suspect;

(b) Whether the revocation of the disposition is substantially inappropriate for public welfare where a person who has been removed by illegal procedures has received retirement benefits or there are circumstances to retire ipso facto.

A. Article 4 of the Local Public Officials Discipline Regulations and Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the notification of attendance to a discipline accused person and the provision of the opportunity to make statements to the discipline accused person in disciplinary proceedings are interpreted as compulsory provisions to guarantee the person's right to attend and make statements in disciplinary proceedings. This applies not only to the first disciplinary decision date but also to the date that is fixed again without holding the disciplinary committee. Thus, even if the person under disciplinary action is predicted to be dismissed and the person under disciplinary action requests the postponement of the disciplinary date for the purpose of continuing to receive a salary until the removal, it cannot be said that the person under disciplinary action is exempted from the duty to notify the person under disciplinary action. Thus, the removal made on the postponed date without the notice of attendance to the person under disciplinary action is unlawful in

B. Even though a person who was removed received retirement benefits after the disposition, it cannot be deemed to have approved the removal, and it shall not be deemed that the cancellation of the removal by the illegal procedure is obviously inappropriate for the public welfare, even if there are circumstances under which he/she should automatically retire under Articles 61 and 31 of the Local Public Officials Act, with a final and conclusive judgment of conviction that he/she is sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a misconduct in the course of his/her duties.

(a) Articles 71 and 72 of the Local Public Officials Act; Articles 4 and 5 of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations; Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 61 and 31 of the Local Public Officials Act;

Plaintiff

The head of Gangseo-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu9 delivered on February 1, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on its reasoning, the Gangseo-gu Personnel Committee issued an order to the plaintiff detained at the time of June 24, 1982 to attend the Gangseo-gu Personnel Committee's third floor planning room of Gangseo-gu Office of 09:00 of the same month. The plaintiff refused to affix his/her signature on the waiver of statement and requested the postponement of the date of the resolution on disciplinary action on the ground that he/she cannot attend because he/she is in custody. The Gangseo-gu Personnel Committee's extension of the date of the resolution on disciplinary action to the plaintiff on July 26, 1982, including the initial scheduled date of the resolution on disciplinary action to the plaintiff 7.2 of the same year, and there is no oral or written notification of the above postponed date. Thus, the defendant's disciplinary action on the ground that the defendant's request for postponement of the resolution on disciplinary action was unlawful, and the defendant's request for postponement of the resolution on the ground that the defendant 2's opportunity to attend the above postponement of the resolution on the disciplinary action to the plaintiff is legitimate.

2. Article 4 of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations provides that the personnel committee shall send a notice of attendance to the suspect in writing, and if the suspect does not wish to be present at the committee to make a statement, it shall be accompanied by the record, and if the suspect is unable to present at the committee for a justifiable reason, it may make a statement in writing, and if the suspect is not present at the committee, a disciplinary decision may be made in writing, and Article 5 provides that the suspect may be made in writing if he does not present at the committee and does not present a written statement, and the suspect shall be given an opportunity to make a sufficient statement to the suspect in writing, and in a disciplinary proceeding, Article 5 provides that the person under disciplinary action may state or submit evidence that is favorable to him, in writing or orally, it is interpreted as mandatory to guarantee the suspect's right to attend and make a statement. This is applied not only to the first fixed date of disciplinary decision but also to the extended date and on the fixed date.

According to the decision of the court below, the plaintiff who is a discipline accused person did not submit a written waiver of attendance or statement on the date of disciplinary decision, and the above personnel committee did not notify the plaintiff of the new date after the extension of the original date of disciplinary decision. Thus, the disciplinary decision at the date of disciplinary decision on July 2, 1982 was procedural errors and the defendant's removal disposition in accordance with this decision is also unlawful. Thus, the decision of the court below to this purport is clear, and the decision of the court below on the grounds of a timely argument about the invalidation of a ruling is not appropriate

3. The plaintiff's petition for the postponement of the date of a resolution on disciplinary action is the only reason that the plaintiff had no intention to attend or make a statement on the date of the resolution on disciplinary action, but there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff had no intention to attend or make a statement as the subject of the lawsuit, and even if there was such intent, the plaintiff shall submit a written waiver of attendance and statement in accordance with the above provisions and submit the record attached thereto. In addition, even if the plaintiff received retirement benefits after the removal of the case, it cannot be deemed that the removal was approved with the fact that the plaintiff received the retirement benefits after the removal of the case, and even if the plaintiff was convicted of having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to misconduct in the course of performing his duties, it is not recognized that the removal from office made by the illegal procedure as in this case is considerably inappropriate for the public welfare.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)