[1] Where the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality is limited

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the retroactive effect of the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 31 Item 5 of the former Local Public Officials Act is limited

[1] Articles 31 subparag. 5 and 61 of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 6786 of Dec. 18, 2002), Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitutional Court Act / [2] Articles 31 subparag. 5 and 61 of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 6786 of Dec. 18, 2002), Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitutional Court Act

[1] Constitutional Court en banc Order 2001Hun-Ma788, 2002Hun-Ma173 decided August 29, 2002 (Hun-Ma72, 760) (Hun-Ma760 decided Nov. 10, 2005) (Gong2005Ha, 1971)

Plaintiff

Yangsan City

Busan High Court Decision 2003Nu2113 delivered on November 21, 2003

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The effect of the decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court is not limited to the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality or made a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality before the decision of unconstitutionality is made, but the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality or made a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality before the decision of unconstitutionality. However, the effect of the decision of unconstitutionality cannot be limited to the case in which the court is pending after the decision of unconstitutionality is based on the premise of the decision of unconstitutionality as well as the general case in which the court is brought after the decision of unconstitutionality. However, even if the court does not apply the law or the provisions of the law decided unconstitutional, it is not to deny that the retroactive effect is limited by other legal principles, and it is rather necessary to limit the retroactive effect of the decision of unconstitutionality when it is inevitable to maintain legal stability or protect the trust of the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da42740 delivered on October 25,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the evidence adopted, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its ruling, and determined that the case constitutes an exceptional crime under Article 31 subparagraph 5 of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 6786, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) unconstitutionality decision of unconstitutionality (hereinafter "unconstitutionality of this case"), where the plaintiff was indicted as a crime of illegal punishment after accepting bribery, and then retired ex officio after receiving a suspension of sentence of imprisonment, and thus, it constitutes an exceptional case under the former Local Public Officials Act’s unconstitutionality decision of unconstitutionality, and thus, it constitutes an exceptional case under the same law, such as the National Public Officials Act and the Police Officials Act, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize the validity of the former unconstitutionality decision of unconstitutionality that the plaintiff’s request for a new unconstitutionality decision of a public official would not have an obvious retroactive effect upon the plaintiff’s request for a new unconstitutional decision of unconstitutionality decision of this case.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the retroactive effect of the decision of unconstitutionality.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different cases and are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

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 Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)