beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding or supplementing the judgment as described in paragraph (2) as to the assertion that the plaintiff added or emphasized at the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
(However, the part against Codefendant B of the first instance trial is excluded). 2. Additional supplementary determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's disposition of removal from position against the plaintiff is erroneous in violation of Article 22 (3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, such as the plaintiff's dismissal without going through the plaintiff's explanation or hearing of opinions.
However, the removal from position under Article 73-3 (1) of the State Public Officials Act is a temporary and provisional measure that prevents a public official from performing his duties due to a lack of job performance or extremely poor work performance, in case where a public official is prosecuted for a criminal case, etc., if the public official continues to be in charge of his duties in the future, it is a temporary personnel measure to prevent the official from performing his duties due to his temporary failure to assign his position and to prevent the official from performing his duties due to his lack of job performance.
Therefore, in light of its nature, the same procedural guarantee as is required by disciplinary action, etc., which is conducted for the purpose of maintaining the order of public service as to the misconduct of public officials in the past, cannot be demanded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du5945, Oct. 10, 2003; 2012Da64833, May 9, 2013; 2004HunBa12, May 25, 2006; etc.). Thus, the Defendant did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to submit opinions, etc. under Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act prior to the disposition of dismissal from position against the Plaintiff.