In a case where the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection took a disposition to dismiss A under Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act on the grounds that a vice auditor (Grade V) who belongs to the Board of Audit and Inspection unfairly involved in a change in traffic countermeasures, etc., the case affirming the judgment below holding that the above disposition to dismiss A who is a public official of Grade V belonging to the Board of Audit and Inspection is unlawful on the ground that Article 18-2 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act is preferentially applied to disciplinary action against public officials of Grade V belonging to

Articles 32(1) and (3) and 82(1) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 2 subparag. 3(a) and 5(1) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials, Articles 18 and 18-2 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act

Plaintiff

Chairman General

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu85636 decided June 15, 2018

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s removal of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, who was a public official of Grade V belonging to the Board of Audit and Inspection, was unlawful, as long as the Plaintiff was not authorized, since Article 18-2 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act preferentially applies to disciplinary action against public officials of Grade V

Examining the relevant legal principles and records in light of the legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)