A. Criteria for determining whether a disciplinary decision deviates from discretion

B. Appropriateness of disciplinary action and dismissal against supervisory teachers in a detention center only on the ground of such supervisory negligence

A. Whether the degree of disciplinary action exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be objectively examined and determined by the nature of the disciplinary action, the administrative purpose to reach by the disciplinary action, and all other circumstances incidental thereto.

B. In a case where the security of the detention house and the supervisory teachers affiliated with the detention house have been subject to disciplinary action, such as removal of 17 staff members such as the head of the detention house, the head of the relevant department, etc., and nine staff members of the detention house were dismissed, and if the staff of the detention house comprehensively reflects the administrative purpose that should prevent such accidents in advance in accordance with the duties of the employee of the detention house, it cannot be deemed that the dismissal of the above supervisory teachers was proper and excess of the discretionary authority.

Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu46 delivered on September 14, 1982

Plaintiff

Yeongdeungpo-gu Director General

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu637 delivered on August 31, 1982

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

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below is consistent with the evidence of this case. The plaintiff was unable to open the door 1 and open the door 1 to 3 non-party 1, and it was impossible for the non-party 2 to open the door 1 and open the door 1, and there were 8 non-party 2 to open the door 1 and open the door 1 to 3 non-party 6 non-party 8's office, and then to open the door 1's office and open the door 1's office for the non-party 6 defendant 1 to 8's office. The plaintiff was unable to open the door 1's office and open 1's office for the non-party 6's office for the non-party 1 to 9's office for the non-party 2's office for the non-party 9's office for the non-party 2's office for the non-party 2's office for the non-party 9's office for the non-party 1's office for the non-party 1's office for the non-party 2's office.

2. Whether the degree of disciplinary action exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms refers to the objective review and determination of the facts and nature of the grounds for disciplinary action, and the administrative purpose to be caused by the disciplinary action, and all other circumstances accompanied by the disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu46, Sept. 14, 1982). In light of records, when the plaintiff neglected to supervise the employee in charge, so the group escape accident of this case occurred where four people escape in a white zone. In addition, 17 persons such as the warden, the head of the relevant division, and the head of the relevant division, were subject to disciplinary action, and 64 persons such as removal from office, nine persons were dismissed, and the detention center employees were subject to disciplinary action. In addition, considering the administrative purpose that the detention center employees should prevent the same accident in advance, more faithful to their duties, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's dismissal from office does not deviate from the proper and discretionary limit, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disciplinary disposition of this case, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)