In a case where Gap, a fire-fighting officer, was judged to be physically disabled due to a traffic accident during his family travel, and the competent administrative agency, upon being judged to be physically disabled, deemed to fall under "when he is unable to perform his duties" under Article 62 (1) 2 of the Local Public Officials Act, and the above disposition was issued ex officio, the case holding that the above disposition was unlawful.

In a case where Gap, a fire-fighting officer, was judged to be physically disabled due to a traffic accident during his family travel and was judged to be physically disabled, and the administrative agency having jurisdiction over Gap constitutes "when he is unable to perform his duties" as provided by Article 62 (1) 2 of the Local Public Officials Act, and the above disposition is unlawful on the ground that although Gap was unable to perform fire extinguishment and rescue activities, which are the external duties of fire-fighting officers, the case held that the above disposition is unlawful on the ground that although Eul was unable to perform fire extinguishment and rescue activities, he may independently perform all daily activities through auxiliary equipment such as wheelchairs, and there is still no problem in recognition function and commercial function, and thus Gap still has the ability to perform administrative duties and communications duties, etc. corresponding to the internal duties of fire-fighting officers.

Article 62 (1) 2 of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 43 (3) of the Decree on the Appointment of Fire-Fighting Officials, Article 23 (7) [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Rule on the Appointment of Fire-Fighting Officials

[Judgment of the court below]

The Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City

October 17, 2014

1. The Defendant’s ex officio dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on August 16, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a fire-fighting official on December 15, 1997. From September 25, 2009, the Plaintiff was working at the ○○ Fire-Fighting Center Central 119 Safety Center.

B. On May 29, 2011, while making family travel, the Plaintiff was judged as being physically disabled due to a traffic accident, and was temporarily dismissed from office from August 18, 201 to August 17, 2013.

C. On August 16, 2013, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff constitutes “when he/she is unable to perform his/her duties” under Article 62(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff on August 16, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for review of the instant disposition with the Incheon Metropolitan City Appeal Committee for Local Public Officials, but was dismissed by the said Committee on November 11, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff suffered physical disability, but there is no problem about the main function of the area, etc., so the plaintiff is capable of taking charge of the internal duties of fire officers.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the grounds for ex officio dismissal exist

The issue of “when the relevant public official is unable to perform his/her duties,” which is the requirement for ex officio dismissal under Article 62(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act, is reasonable by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the nature and contents of the duties that the relevant public official can cope with with with with the remaining ability, and whether the relevant public official has taken account of the adjustment of duties, etc. of the relevant local government to ensure the smooth return

The fact that the plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident resulting in the status of the lower half of the year is as shown in the circumstances leading up to the above disposition.

However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, namely, ① a fire officer is ordinarily assigned to a position in charge of internal work and external work; a fire officer is assigned to a position in charge of internal work; a fire-fighting and communications work are assigned to an internal work; and a fire-fighting and rescue work are performed as an external work; although the plaintiff was unable to perform fire-fighting and rescue activities, etc., which are the external work of a fire officer, due to his anti-competing, etc., even though the plaintiff was unable to perform fire-fighting and rescue activities, the plaintiff can independently perform all daily activities through auxiliary equipment such as wheelchairs, etc., and there is no problem in recognition function and commercial function; ② The defendant still has the ability to perform administrative work and communications work corresponding to the internal work of a fire officer. Nevertheless, the defendant disposition of this case merely based on the reason that the plaintiff was physically handicapped by changing his internal work.

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) The Defendant asserts that the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on the Appointment of Fire-Fighting Officials (attached Table 5) which provides for physical conditions and health conditions for the appointment of fire-fighting officers under Article 43(3) of the Decree on the Appointment of Fire-Fighting Officials shall be strong, the body, arms, legs are complete, have developed, and there shall not be any trouble in the function due to symptoms due to symptoms of all kinds of chronic and physical diseases. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff constitutes ex officio dismissal grounds for “when he is unable to perform his duties” on the ground that he fails to meet the above physical conditions and health conditions as set forth in attached Table 5.

However, the physical conditions and health conditions of fire officers under Article 43(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Decree on the Appointment of Fire-Fighting Officials under Article 43(3) of the Decree on the Appointment of Fire-Fighting Officials merely provide for the conditions in a recruitment examination for fire-fighting officers, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the circumstance that fire-fighting officers fail to meet the above physical conditions and health conditions under Article 62(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act on the ground that they are in office does not constitute “when they

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B) The Defendant asserts that if a disaster, such as large fire, occurs, a fire officer must be placed in the place of internal duty and external duty, and thus, it cannot be absolutely divided into internal duty and external duty due to the characteristics of the fire officer’s duty, and that the personnel management of the fire officer, in principle, causes a decline in the morale of other fire officers if the Plaintiff only engages in internal duty, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be placed in the place of internal duty.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 10, the fact finding about the defendant, and the whole purport of the arguments, the fire officers belonging to the defendant are about 2,200 (the base of 2011). The defendant called for emergency service of fire officers from Jan. 2010 to Feb. 2014. In most cases, the number of emergency service officers is about 10 persons or less, and even in case of emergency call, the pertinent fire officers have little capacity to perform their duties inside the emergency room.

In other words, the above facts and the whole purport of oral argument are as follows. ① The defendant's fire officers clearly distinguish the assignment of the fire officers from the assignment of the fire officers and the assignment of the fire officers. Many fire officers work in areas other than the field duty; ② The fire officers are in cases of emergency call-up and perform the extra duty; ② In such cases, the fire officers cannot be deemed to perform the extra duty; ③ there are cases where the fire officers who are in fact called-up are engaged in the extra duty; ④ there are physical disabilities such as the plaintiff among the fire officers belonging to the defendant, ④ there are no physical disabilities such as the plaintiff among the fire officers belonging to the defendant, and even if the fire officers who are suffering from the same physical disability such as the plaintiff are expected to suffer from the latter, it is extremely difficult to deem the plaintiff to perform the extra duty in full view of the above facts.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C) The Defendant asserts that the cases of returning a fire-fighting official’s physical disability to his/her original state due to administrative affairs should be treated differently from the above cases of reinstatement in cases where he/she suffered physical disability due to an accident on official duty, not from an accident on official duty.

However, the main criterion for determining whether the cause of physical disability of the pertinent public official is an obstacle to public duties or an individual situation is not the cause of such physical disability, and it is reasonable to consider whether the pertinent public official, who is the reason for ex officio dismissal, can perform his duties with the remaining capacity of the fire official, as prescribed by Article 62(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act, should be considered as the main factor. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff appears to have the ability to perform duties of the fire official, so this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case rendered on the premise that the Plaintiff’s ex officio dismissal under Article 62(1)2 of the Local Public Officials Act constitutes “when the Plaintiff is unable to perform his/her duties” is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Tae Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)