The legality of removal disposition against the Eup cleaning center that receives money for the purpose of impliedizing business activities from the specialized restaurant operator.

If the plaintiff (the Eup cleaning place) received 100,000 won from a specialized restaurant operator with a request from the specialized restaurant operator to impliedly approve the business type of the food business, and introduced it to the head of the planning and budget division of the Nam-gun in order to obtain a business license by illegal means, and let the above operator get a Kabba from the head of the Nam-gun in order to get a Kababa business. If he received 500,000 won from the above owner of the business to the head of the above planning and budget division and delivered it to the head of the above planning and budget division, the removal disposition against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have exceeded the limit of the disciplinary discretion.

Articles 69(1)1 and 2, 48, 53, and 55 of the Local Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Yang-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu7 delivered on February 10, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below, based on the evidence of the city, found that the plaintiff as the head of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City residents and the head of the cleaning center in order to regulate the violation of the business attitude of the food establishment, and received 100,000 won from the non-party 1, a specialized restaurant, at the request of the non-party 1 who is the business owner of the Dong-gu Center, the specialized restaurant, and received 100,000 won from the implied name, and introduced the non-party 1 to the non-party 2, a head of the planning and budget division of the Namyang-gu, the head of the Nam-gu, and let the non-party 2 obtain Kabababababababababababababababababababababababababa, and delivered Kababababababababababababababa.

We cannot accept this issue.

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)