Whether administrative litigation against removal shall be required to go through the prescribed procedure in filing an administrative litigation; 2. Whether the grounds for removal from position can be subject to disciplinary action

A. The disposition of removal from office stipulated in Article 73-2 of the State Public Officials Act is a disposition that prevents a person from performing his/her duties because he/she does not assign his/her position regardless of his/her will, and thus is similar to the disposition of temporary retirement stipulated in Articles 71 and 73 of the same Act that is disadvantageous to the person subject to the disposition. Therefore, it shall undergo an examination by the appeals review committee pursuant to Article 76(

B. Since removal from position is not a disciplinary action, the issue of whether the grounds for removal from position exceed the prescription period is not a ground for disciplinary action.

Articles 73-2, 76 and 83 of the State Public Officials Act (Law No. 1711),

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu132 delivered on November 30, 1970 (Dakhd 9302, Supreme Court Decision 18Noh 183Da191 delivered on September 28, 1971 (No. 71Nu96 delivered on September 28, 1971) (No. 9834 delivered on September 9, 198, and Article 71(4)40 of the State Public Officials Act)

Plaintiff

Minister of Government Administration

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On May 29, 1967, the attorney of the plaintiff filed a judgment that the dismissal against the plaintiff was revoked by the President.

1. According to the whole purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1, 2-4 of the same evidence and evidence Nos. 3-2 of the same evidence, the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the appointment-recommendation authority of the plaintiff who worked as the principal of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Officials Education Center for the plaintiff on May 16, 196, shall apply Article 73-2 (1) 5 of the State Public Officials Act to cancel the plaintiff's position by applying the plaintiff's position (hereinafter in this case's removal from position) on the ground that the plaintiff, who was released from his position as above on May 29, 1967, was not assigned to the plaintiff again three months after the removal from his position as above, by applying Article 73-2 (3) of the same Act to the plaintiff on the ground that the notice was served to the plaintiff on June 7, 196.

2. However, the plaintiff first asserted that the disposition of dismissal of this case was an illegal disposition since it was made without issuing an explanatory note on the ground of disposition as stipulated in Article 75 of the State Public Officials Act.

However, the purport of Article 75 of the State Public Officials Act stipulating that the explanatory note of the disposition shall be delivered to the person subject to the disposition, as clearly stated in Article 76 of the same Act, is that the person subject to the disposition knew of the reason for the disposition and confirmed the initial date of the request period so that he may request review to the appeals review committee within a specified period from the date the explanatory note is delivered. Thus, as in this case, if the plaintiff was notified of the disposition of dismissal and requested review to the appeals review committee before the explanatory note of the disposition was delivered, it cannot be said that the disposition of dismissal itself is unlawful because there was no delivery of the explanatory note, and in light of the whole purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraph 1 to 4 of Article 2-2, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who is the appointment-recommendation authority, after the lawsuit was filed, shall have been delivered to the plaintiff on August 24, 1967, and thus, it is presumed that there was no procedural defect in the delivery of the explanatory note of disposition.

3. Next, the plaintiff argues that the disposition of dismissal based on this disposition is illegal since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor did not investigate specific and objective facts about the grounds for removal from position against the plaintiff, and only applied Article 73-2 (1) 5 of the State Public Officials Act.

In light of the above, the removal from position stipulated in Article 73-2 of the State Public Officials Act is similar to the temporary retirement stipulated in Articles 71 and 73 of the same Act in that it does not assign a position to the person himself/herself regardless of his/her intention and prevents him/her from performing his/her duties. However, according to Article 76(1) of the same Act, if a public official is subject to a disciplinary action, demotion, temporary retirement, or removal against his/her will, he/she may request an review to the appeals review committee within 30 days from the date of such disposition. Thus, if a person who is subject to the aforementioned removal from position is dissatisfied with this disposition, he/she shall request an review to the appeals review committee pursuant to Article 76(1) of the same Act, and if the period for request for a review fails to request a review, it shall not be subject to dispute again, unless the disposition is null and void.

However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff in this case recognizes that there is no petition review or administrative litigation against the post of the removal from the position in question, and therefore, even if the removal from the position in this case was conducted without investigating the facts as the plaintiff's assertion, it cannot be viewed as a disposition of invalidation only because it cannot be viewed as a disposition of invalidation, and since it is merely a ground for revocation, it cannot be asserted as illegal. The above argument that the dismissal from the position based on this disposition is unlawful is groundless.

However, according to Article 73-2 (2) of the same Act, the appointment authority or the appointment-recommendation authority shall assign a position without delay when the grounds for cancellation have ceased to exist after the cancellation of position. Thus, even if the grounds for cancellation of position for the plaintiff have ceased to exist after the cancellation of position, it may be argued that the dismissal is unlawful without assigning position even if the grounds for dismissal of position have ceased to exist later. However, even if the plaintiff's all supporting materials are examined, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the grounds for cancellation of position under Article 73-2 (1) 5 of the State Public Officials Act, which is the grounds for removal of position,

4. In addition, according to Article 3 of the Regulations of the ex officio dismissal Review Committee, prior to the ex officio dismissal, the review committee shall review the grounds for the ex officio dismissal based on the sufficient investigation by the applicant. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor requested the review without any investigation of the Plaintiff’s grounds for the ex officio dismissal, and the review committee conducted the review based on the request for such review. Accordingly, the dismissal of the instant case based on the review is alleged to be illegal.

However, according to Article 3 (1) and (3) of the Regulations of the Ex Officio Dismissal Review Board, and Article 73-2 (3) of the State Public Officials Act, the reason for ex officio dismissal which is to be examined by the Ex Officio Dismissal Review Board does not refer to the reason that a person who has a reason for removal from position under Article 73-2 (1) 1, 2 or 5 of the same Act was not granted position even after three months have passed since the removal from position. Thus, this reason is subdivided, first, there is a reason for removal from position; second, the reason for removal from position should be three months after the removal from position is not granted; third, the degree of the lack of the reason for removal from position which is caused by the removal from position can be considered to be a considerable reason for the removal from office; second, the plaintiff's dismissal from office cannot be viewed to be unlawful in light of the contents of the above evidence and the fact that the above dismissal from office cannot be viewed to be unlawful; second, the plaintiff's dismissal from office cannot be viewed to be justified.

5. Finally, the reason for the removal from position against the plaintiff is that (1) the removal from position against the plaintiff is unfair, (2) the issuance of a sale certificate and the cancellation of mortgage, (3) the removal from position is improper, (6) the removal from position is inappropriate, (4) the removal from position is inappropriate, (5) the removal from position is improper, (6) the removal from position is improper, (7) the removal from position is improper, (8) the removal from position from position is improper, (10) the removal from position was made based on the principle of disciplinary action against the public official, (12) the removal from position was invalid, (13) the removal from position was unlawful, and (5) the removal from position was unlawful, since the removal from position was unlawful, (6) the removal from position was unlawful, and (8) the removal from position was unlawful, and (1) the removal from position was unlawful, (10) the removal from position was made based on the principle of disciplinary action against the public official's removal from position before the removal from position was made.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 2-3 and 3-2 of the evidence Nos. 2-3 and 3-2 without dispute in the establishment, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City recognizes that the plaintiff's ability to direct and supervise the parts belonging to the plaintiff is considerably lacking, considering each of the causes such as the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's failure to meet the above legal principles, and it is clear that the above individual reasons are not applied to the above legal principles, and there is no reason to believe that the disciplinary action is a disciplinary action against the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff.

6. Ultimately, since it is apparent that the plaintiff's main claim for revocation is groundless since the dismissal of this case is unlawful, it is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Ha-ju (Presiding Judge)