2010Guhap6060 Revocation of revocation of dismissal

BaO (66 years old, male)

Gunpo-si

Law Firm citizen, Attorneys Kim ○-○, and KimO-O

The head of Ansan-si

Litigation PerformersO, YOO, Hyo

Attorney Lee O-O

August 19, 2010

October 7, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's removal disposition against the plaintiff on November 6, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the plaintiff

The plaintiff was appointed as a local public official on June 11, 1992 and served in the administrative support division in Ansan-gu Office from October 23, 2007 to Ansan-si, and was the chairman of the National Public Officials' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "former Public Officials' Union") who was appointed as a local public official during the period from October 23, 2007 and was during the leave from October 20, 208 to the date of the removal of this case.

B. Declarations of Korean Teachers' Union

On June 18, 2009, the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Teachers’ Union”) announced the Assembly’s No. 20 executives such as the chairman’s regular ○○○, etc. with the view to “the heavy value of the democratic resistance disputes in June 18, 2009” in front of the question in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul.

The Declaration of Assembly and Demonstration refers to the investigation of candlelight demonstration, the investigation of PD pocket book, the fire incident, and the border color of inter-Korean relations, and the fundamental human rights of the present government were seriously caused by the abuse of public authority, resulting in the crisis of the shareholders. This was derived from the operation of the present government's reading team and the country of registry.

(c) promoting the 19th Pacific and pan-national meetings;

1) On June 18, 2009, the Korean Democratic Public Officials’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Officials’ Union”) supported the government declaration at the time of the former Public Officials’ Union on June 18, 2009. The Government supported the government declaration at the time of the former Public Officials’ Union. He supported the former Public Officials’ Assembly by the revocation of the disciplinary policy and announced the name claiming that he would withdraw the disciplinary action against the participants. On June 22, 2009, the executive officers of the public Officials’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “three public Officials’ Union”) discussed that three public Officials’ Unions’ Unions should jointly cooperate with the former Public Officials’ Unions at the Seocho-gu Seoul OOdong Office in accordance with the latter Public Officials’ Union Declaration at the time of the former Public Officials’ Union.

2) On June 23, 2009, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety stated that the Declaration of Public Officials’ Labor constitutes a collective act prohibited by the State Public Officials Act, etc., and that the Declaration was held by three public officials’ unions, including the Plaintiff, and the executives and employees, etc., of the Democratic Trade Union Federation on June 26, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “National Labor Union Federation”) held the “Public Officials’ Labor Union Joint Assembly Meeting related to the Declaration of Public Officials’ Labor Union” in the room of the Assembly. In addition, the Declaration of Public Officials’ Labor was held to suspend the labor pressure in relation to the discussion of three public officials’ labor unions.

3) Meanwhile, on July 8, 2009, the ○○○, who is the practitioners of the Civil Democratic People’s Society and the Joint and Several Participants, sent e-mail to the title “,” such as the draft plan of the Second National Assembly ( July 19, 200) / July 16, 200, the Sin National Assembly Chairperson / the Democratic Network Proposal / Contribution / The said e-mail appears to indicate how much 50,00 people participate in the Seoul Metropolitan Government Games, and how much 0,000 people participate in the democratic destruction media, vice-presidential policies, and environmental destruction taxes.

In addition, with respect to the holding of the second 19th 2nd 2nd pan-national conference attached to the above e-mail, "the 3th 0th 19th 19th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 19th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 0th 2nd 0th 0th 1st 0th 0th 0th 0th 0 0th 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 000 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 0 00 0th 00 0th 00 0th 0 00 0th 2nd 00.

4) On July 9, 2009: 00 : At the meeting room of the third floor of 00 : 9 cases such as the case of a change in the 9th central executive committee, the major union held a committee for the 9th central executive committee to discuss the 9 cases. "The main contents of the proposal are as follows."

The order of the Do Governor: the 7th Central Execution Committee for the third executive secretary's full-time meeting of 7.11. (R)

In order to hold a meeting, all the executives who were brought up to July 19, 200 by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea;

The main time is to re-convene the schedule of the UNFCCC.

D. The Assembly and Demonstration Act’s assembly and demonstration of public officials

The Second Korean People's Congress for Democratic Recovery;

1. Date: July 19, 190

2. Place: Seoul plaza (scheduled area);

3. Type;

0. A copy: A teachers’ and public officials’ assembly (16: 00 to 17: 00)

○ Two Parts: Democratic Recovery and Second Korean People’s Congress (17: 20~18: 50)

0 Parts 3: National Peace Agency (18: 50 to 19: 30)

4. The operation of participants: Two thousand persons per democracy, one thousand and five hundred persons per civil worker, three hundred persons per creative Korea, three hundred persons per creative Korea, and an inventive step.

500 persons, Democratic Labor General 3, 000 persons, 1,000 non-obviousnesss, 2,000 persons for four lectures, 2,000 persons for four lectures, and full-time teaching assistants.

5. 5.00 persons for major, 500 persons for major, 2,00 persons for public interest, 17, 800 persons for public interest, 17, 800 persons + voluntary participation of citizens)

5. Publicity plans;

○ A banner at a place of 100 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (a legitimate name)

○ Mass distribution in front of the So-called “Korean Film Association” (Korean Film Association)

○ Mama News, the sound of the public, and advertisements with the presses (11 to 10 days)

○ Establishment of a plan for public relations activities by group and enforcement of the total power

6. Total budget: 30 million won;

O Pre-school assistant + A public official: 15 million won

○ Political Party and National Assembly: 15 million won

(d) participation in the 19th Pacific and pan-national meetings;

1) The Assembly and Demonstration of Teachers and Public Officials

On July 19, 2009: From 00 to 17:00 on the same day, members of the Audit and Inspection Center of the Seoul Station; Etho-hee; ○○○○○ Assembly member of the Democratic Party; ○○○○○○ Assembly member; 1,100 members belonging to the previous school; 150 members belonging to the previous school; 150 members belonging to the private school; 100 members belonging to the private school; 50 members belonging to the court labor union; from 00 to 00; 200 members belonging to the court labor union; and 30 members of the previous school affairs division, “the teachers and public officials of the teachers’ conference” were held on July 2, 19, 2007.

The plaintiff made a speech to finite with the salary force and this regime. The participants at the assembly held that "the assembly was under the influence of rescue" and "the assembly was under the influence of rescue," and "the assembly was under the influence of preventing the assembly from being under the influence of rescue," "the assembly was under the influence of stopping the assembly," "the four pins," "the four pins," and "the assembly was under the influence of blocking the press law," and "the democracy was under the influence of Mara," "the MB music law," "the country was under the influence of the Republic of Korea," "the 4 pins," "the flag of the debate," "the democratic election," "the labor organization," "the labor organization," "the labor organization," "the free will of the present government," "the labor organization," "the free will of the present government."

In addition, in the Seoul Station, “976 dismissed workers were distributed a political party news containing political arguments, including “the 976 workers will be protected by the Democratic Party,” “The Democratic Party, including the head of the political state,” “MB trial and college students’ solidarity for the recovery of democracy,” and “The current government will criticize the political party news or the current government.”

2) The second Korean People's Congress for Democratic Recovery;

From 00 to 19:00 on the same day, the ‘the second pan-national conference for the restoration of democracy and the second pan-national conference for the suicide of the YTN road in Seoul Square as the society of the chairman of the management of the YTN road.'

The participants of the Assembly proposed 10 meters in length, stating "the withdrawal of the Press Act and the suspension of the fourth druplicous destruction of the environment of the 1.e., the 1.b. Hear labb labbed by the full-time operation of the press, b. He proposed f.m. " ..................................................................................

또한 , 한국진보연대 이○실 공동대표는 " 반 MB전선을 만들어 똘똘 뭉쳐 투 쟁해 나가자 ” 라고 연설하고 , 민주노총 임○○ 위원장은 " 우리 노동자들은 쌍용차 공권 력 투입과 미디어법 강행처리 시 전면 파업에 돌입할 것이다 " 라고 연설하였으며 , 최○ ○ 언론노조 위원장은 " 언론악법 폐지를 위해 MB정권에 맞서 끝까지 투쟁할 것이다 " 라고 연설하였다 . 계속하여 민주당 송00 의원은 " 언론은 민주주의 생명이다 . 미디어 법은 절대로 통과되어서는 안 된다 " 라고 연설하고 , 민노당 강OO 의원은 " 현 정부는 서민정부를 죽이고 있다 " 라고 연설하였으며 , 창조한국당 유○○ 의원은 " 현 정부와 한 판 붙어서 이 지구상에서 영원히 격리시키자 " 라고 연설하였다 .

E. Results of the removal from office, petition review, etc. of this case

1) On August 10, 2009, Gyeonggi-do requested the Yangyang market to take a heavy disciplinary measure on the grounds that the plaintiff planned and led the "Public Officials' City Mayor on July 19, 2007" through "B" notification of disciplinary measures against persons related to illegal collective action against public officials' labor unions, and the Ansan market notified the defendant of the same contents. The defendant requested the chairperson of the Ansan-si Personnel Committee to take a heavy disciplinary measure against the plaintiff on September 9, 2009, but the defendant revoked the above request upon the request of the plaintiff's change of disciplinary agency, and again requested the Personnel Committee of Gyeonggi-do to take a disciplinary measure against the plaintiff on October 9, 2009.

2) On October 22, 2009, the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee made a speech against the government that "the public official who was fluorized and sculed in the government on July 19, 2009, a political assembly, actively participated in the teachers' and public officials' assembly, democratic recovery trial, and through a large company, would throw away a public official's breathbbbbbbbbing the government where he was fluored and sculed in this government," and "the public official would be fluoring in the O government where he was fluoring democracy," which violates Articles 48 (Duty of Good Faith), 49 (Duty of Good Faith), and 55 (Duty of Maintenance of Goods), Article 58 (Prohibition of Collective Action), Article 31 of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act (amended by Act No. 10137, Oct. 31, 2010).

3) Accordingly, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff from office on November 6, 2009. On November 26, 2009, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant removal disposition, filed a petition review with the Gyeonggi-do Local Appeals Review Committee on November 26, 2009, but the Plaintiff’s petition for review was dismissed on February 1, 2010 (the date of preparation of the authentic copy).

4) On September 13, 2010, in the case of violation of the Local Public Officials Act by the Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap000, the Plaintiff was convicted of all of the grounds for the instant disposition (the Plaintiff was punished by a fine of KRW 2 million by holding a preparatory and public meeting on July 19, 201, a public speech of the company at the above regular conference, following the above regular conference, and by participating in the national conference, the Plaintiff was punished by a fine of KRW 2 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 18, Eul evidence No. 21 (including each number), facts with significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The removal disposition of this case shall be taken as follows by the disciplinary authority, grounds for disciplinary action, and disciplinary action.

1) The Defendant is not a legitimate person having authority to take action. The appointment of the Plaintiff and the person having authority to take action shall be the Ansan market, which is the head of the local government pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Local

2) The Plaintiff participated in the assembly to oppose the government's unfair disciplinary measures against the government public officials, and the Plaintiff is present as a representative in accordance with the major labor union's decision, and thus, "it is a legitimate labor union's collective activity" and "it does not violate Article 3 (Guarantee and Restriction of Trade Union Activities) of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act, Article 4 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the former Public Officials' Labor Union Act, Article 58 (Prohibition of Collective Action) of the Local Public Officials Act.

In addition, the plaintiff was on temporary retirement and took part in the lawfully held and peacefully held assembly during the holidays, and thus, the "Local Public Officials Act" does not violate Article 48 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 49 (Duty of Compliance), and Article 55 (Duty of Maintain Dignity) of the Local Public Officials Act.

3) The Plaintiff is bound to take a critical position on the government, an employer, in the course of trade union activities as the president of the labor union, as the major labor union. On July 19, 200, the term “Meansium and the Korean National Assembly” completed the assembly report and did not constitute an illegal rally as a peaceful assembly held on holidays, and cannot be deemed to have neglected the Plaintiff’s duty of care due to the Plaintiff’s participation in the assembly. Thus, the removal of the instant case is too heavy.

B. Key statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the allegation of illegality

According to Article 6 (1) and (2) of the Local Public Officials Act, the head of a local government shall have the authority to appoint, suspend, dismiss, or take disciplinary measures against public officials under his/her jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to as "right to appoint"), as prescribed by the Local Public Officials Act, and a person who has the right to appoint shall delegate part of his/her authority to an auxiliary agency, the head of an affiliated agency, etc., as prescribed by municipal ordinance of the local government body.

According to Article 2 of the Ordinance on the Quota-si Administrative Organizations and the Fixed Number of Public Officials of Ansan-si, the Ansan-si has established the Gu, Mayang-si, etc. as subordinate administrative organizations, and Article 2 of the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs of Ansan-si / [Attached Table] of the Ordinance on the Delegation of Affairs of Ansan-si, and Article 2 of the Ordinance on the Delegation of Affairs of Ansan-si is delegated to the head of the Gu on the appointment of public officials in general service of Grade VII or lower, technical service, and special service.

According to the above provisions, the right to appoint the plaintiff who is in general service Grade 7 is delegated to the head of the Ansan City pursuant to Article 6 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act and Article 2 of the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs at Ansan-si [Attached], and the removal of the plaintiff in this case is legitimate in accordance with the disciplinary authority delegated by the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's illegal assertion is without merit.

2) Judgment on the allegation of illegality in the grounds for disciplinary action

A) As to the assertion that “justifiable trade union activities” are “reasonable and prohibited “political activities” or “collective activities”

(1) In full view of the provisions of Articles 1, 3(1), 4, and 8(1) of the former Public Officials’ Labor Union Act, and Article 2(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the term “justifiable activities related to a labor union of public officials” under Article 3(1) of the former Public Officials’ Labor Union Act means the maintenance and improvement of working conditions and the enhancement of workers’ economic and social status.

In this case, on June 18, 2009, the Assembly was criticized for the present government policy such as candlelights investigation, 'PDbook investigation', 'PD fire incident', 'gradic inter-Korean relations landscape', and 3 public officials' unions such as major unions were decided to jointly act in concert with the above assembly. The plaintiff, as the major union leader, was prepared on July 19, 200, as the company's team, "Korean public officials' union was flick with the repair force and this government, and the purpose of the assembly was to leave the government's accusation and request for disciplinary action against the front school line, and the political criticism against the present government, 'the acts of stopping the assembly', 'the acts of stopping the public', 'the acts of stopping the assembly', 'the acts of stopping the public', 'the acts of stopping the assembly', 'the acts of stopping the public', 'the acts of stopping the assembly', 'the acts of stopping the assembly.

The above assembly process, contents, and the Plaintiff’s act is an act of expressing political intent to exercise influence in the process of decision-making on government policies by linking the government with each political party and organization. Article 3(1) of the former Public Officials’ Labor Union Act cannot be deemed as an act related to the maintenance and improvement of working conditions that belongs to the category of legitimate trade union activation.

(2) In addition, in light of the following, the Plaintiff’s above actions are prohibited by Article 4 of the former Public Officials’ Union Act.

In other words, Article 4 of the former Public Officials' Unions Act provides that "no labor union and its members shall engage in any political activity." The former Public Officials' Unions Act provides that "The scope of activities of public officials' labor unions shall be limited to activities to enhance economic and social status, such as remuneration, welfare, and other working conditions of public officials' labor unions in principle, in accordance with the legal reservation of Article 37 (2) of the Constitution by taking into account the characteristics of public officials' duties and status, influence on the freedom and rights of the general public, and it shall not be limited to activities of public officials' unions or their members, and it shall not be related to the management and operation of the government agencies, such as the exercise of the right to appoint, which are not directly related to the working conditions of the government agencies, within the scope of its activities (Article 3 and Article 8 of the former Public Officials' Labor Unions Act), and it shall not be limited to those of public officials' political activities or political activities that are prohibited by the former Public Officials' Labor Unions Act in addition to those of political activities that are prohibited by the Act."

(3) However, Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act provides that "No public official shall engage in any collective activity for any work other than public service," and the term "labor movement" refers to any collective activity that is based on three labor rights, such as the right to collective bargaining, right to collective action, right to collective action, etc. for the improvement of workers' working conditions. Thus, the term "collective activity for any work other than public service" refers not to any collective activity conducted by a public official for any work that does not belong to public service, but to the extent that it guarantees the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, association, and association, the legislative intent of Article 21(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the Local Public Officials Act, the duty to maintain good faith under the Local Public Officials Act, and the duty to maintain good faith under the Local Public Officials Act, etc., which is evaluated as a collective act that affects the duty of care for the purpose of violating the public interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do540, Oct. 25, 2004>

In this case, the plaintiff mentioned 'candlelight fire investigation', 'PD pocketbook investigation', 'Grasan fire history', 'inter-Korean relations light', etc., and led to the crisis of democracy because fundamental human rights were seriously damaged due to the abuse of governmental authority by the present government. This was decided to support the previous school group, 3 public officials' union were jointly engaged in the assembly, and accordingly, the government was decided to hold a meeting on the day of the assembly including the public officials' union' and the members' union held a meeting and held a political argument, and to set the number of members of each organization including 50 major workers' union to participate in the assembly policy, and to share the expenses of the assembly, and to have public officials belonging to the government participate in the political activities and their remuneration for the public officials' union, not in accordance with the political policy of the present government, and to have them participate in the assembly and improvement of the working conditions of the government.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above act constitutes a “collective act that may affect the duty of loyalty for the purpose of going against the labor campaign or public interest,” and it does not change even if it was held on July 19, 19, through legitimate procedures for filing reports.

B) As to the assertion that the duty to maintain good faith, obey, and maintain dignity is not violated

A local public official has the duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act, the duty to obey Article 49, and the duty to maintain dignity under Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act, and even if a public official is exempted from the duty to provide labor as his/her full-time officer, it is meaningful to ensure that he/she is able to concentrate on legitimate activities of a trade union as his/her full-time officer. Thus, even if a public official who is his/her full-time officer of a trade union goes beyond the legitimate scope of trade union activities, the above duty under the Local Public Officials Act cannot be entirely exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13626, Oct. 9, 2008, etc.).

In addition, the duty of good faith under Article 48 of the Local Public Officials Act is the most important duty imposed on a public official, which is to promote the public interest as much as possible, and to faithfully perform his duties with a view to preventing disadvantages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3161, May 23, 1989). The duty of maintaining dignity under Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act refers to a physical body that has no color in performing the duty as a servant of all citizens as a citizen of the Republic of Korea, regardless of inside and outside of his duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3161, Sept. 14, 1982).

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff participated in the Switzerland and the Korean National Assembly on July 19, 2007 where the Plaintiff pressured the government in connection with each political party and body and expressed political intent to exercise influence in the decision-making process of government policies, and as long as the government demands the self-regulation of the government and its disciplinary measures are consistent with the government’s policies, such an act constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain good faith, obey, and maintain dignity under the Local Public Officials Act.

C) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation of illegality is without merit.

In addition, the Plaintiff participated only in the first half of the Pacific Games, and the second half of the 2nd Postingting that there was a certain place, but the Plaintiff made a speech at the first half of the 1st Posing Congress, continued to participate in the second Posinging Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posting Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing Pos

3) Determination as to the allegation of illegality of disciplinary action

In order to be considered as the above-mentioned legal disposition beyond the scope of the discretion of the public official excessively, the content and nature of the misconduct which caused the disciplinary action, and the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, etc. shall be deemed as clearly and objectively inappropriate in light of the content and nature of the misconduct and the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action.

In the instant case, even if the Republic of Korea reported on the assembly on July 19, 199, and was conducted in a flat manner, the government urged the government to refrain through various channels, such as the implementation of the official text, in advance, in training with the Extraordinary 19 July 19, 200, even though it was urged the government to refrain in advance.

The plaintiff's participation in a series of procedures and procedures that can easily predict the strike and results. ② The plaintiff's participation in a meeting that led the series of procedures and procedures; ② the public official's participation in the past regime, which the plaintiff scambed through the large company, and brea○ Government that scams democracy with the public official's speech; ③ the degree of political activities is not easy; ③ the conflict and confusion among the people with social interest in the government policies was increased due to the 19 July 19, 2000 and the public's confidence in the work process is likely to be enhanced; ④ The public official's participation in the 2nd 19 July 19, 2009 and the public's participation in the 2nd 198th 2nd 198th 2nd 2nd 2nd 198, 3rd 2nd 2nd 198, 3rd 2nd 2nd 198, etc.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the plaintiff's disciplinary action is illegal.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit and is dismissed (the defendant did not point out the legal problems of the grounds for the disposition and disciplinary action on October 5, 2010 after the conclusion of the theory of this case, and furthermore, the plaintiff's application for mediation was submitted without the opinion of other administrative agencies related to the disciplinary action, but this case is subject to determination as to whether the defendant has the authority to take disciplinary action against the defendant, whether there is grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff, whether there is deviation or abuse of discretion in disciplinary action, and whether there are legal grounds to the extent that the parties and other administrative agencies exchange opinions, and agree with the mediation recommendation, and there are circumstances to the extent that the other administrative agencies agree to the mediation recommendation, regardless of the defendant's ex officio revocation of the removal disposition of this case, it is not appropriate to recommend mediation only as the defendant wishes otherwise. Thus, the decision is delivered as per Disposition).

Judge Ma-gu of the presiding judge

Judge Lee Jae-young

Judges Kim Min-young