The case holding that a dismissal disposition against a tax official who received 2 million won in total in response to the advice and consultation on the company's tax management cannot be deemed to be an unlawful act that deviates from the scope of discretion.

If a tax official received a total of KRW 2 million in response to the advice and consultation on the company's tax management, it is illegal that the disposition of dismissal of the tax official deviates from the scope of discretion.

The case holding that it cannot be viewed as a case.

Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu29667 delivered on May 19, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below finding that the plaintiff did not receive evidence from the non-party 1's representative director on February 12, 1991 through the non-party 2, 191, 191, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 2,000 won, 1,00 won, etc.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the dismissal disposition of this case is an act in violation of the duty of integrity under Article 61 of the State Public Officials Act while a tax official provides advice on the tax management of a corporation within his jurisdiction, but the plaintiff received 10 official commendation on March 10, 190, such as receiving official commendation from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 10, 1990, and that the plaintiff submitted a resignation notice on February 7, 1992 with regard to the act of giving and receiving the money of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disciplinary authority's dismissal disposition of this case since the plaintiff's continuous service period, official commendation experience, and the plaintiff already submitted a resignation notice prior to the disciplinary action of this case, and the above money was delivered through Nonparty 2, who is one of the parties with a special relationship with the public official, and the dismissal disposition of this case is not an unlawful exercise of discretionary authority as long as it affected the disciplinary authority's discretion.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)