Submission of resignation and genuine resignation by the submission of comprehensive resignation cards;

If the employees have submitted the resignation in a lump sum from the necessity of re-election to ask for the eligibility as a public official, it cannot be deemed that there was any defect in the decision of intention to resign.

Article 68 of the State Public Officials Act

November 24, 1981, 81Nu120 decided Nov. 24, 198 (Court Official Gazette No. 672, 81)

Plaintiff

Busan Director of Regional Tax Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's dismissal from office against the plaintiff on July 14, 1980 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

First of all, I look at the main safety defense.

The defendant litigation performer's assertion that the plaintiff's status as a public official was lost by his own resignation, and that the plaintiff is not dismissed by any specific disposition of the defendant, so this lawsuit is dismissed because there is no administrative disposition subject to the dispute, but it should be dismissed. However, since the dismissal of the public official is a single administrative disposition with the declaration of intention of the person who has the right to appoint and dismiss, as in the case of the plaintiff's dismissal like the case of this case, the dismissal of the public official should be regarded as a single administrative disposition with the contents of the decision of the person who has the right to appoint and dismiss. Therefore, even if the plaintiff's dismissal from office is made as in the case of the plaintiff's dismissal from office, the defendant's main safety objection

For the following bills:

The plaintiff was dismissed from office by the defendant who was his person with the authority to appoint and dismiss him on July 14, 1980 while he was in office as the office of tax office of the subcontractor, the defendant's affiliated agency, and there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's dismissal disposition was made on the ground of the plaintiff's resignation from office on the 11th of the same month, but the plaintiff was ordered to submit the above resignation list in accordance with the government's policy, i.e., public official's accommodation. The plaintiff was ordered by the head of the subordinate tax office, which is the defendant's subordinate agency, to submit the above order of the head of the subordinate tax office, and was not forced as a special power company of the plaintiff. And the plaintiff, who did not commit any unlawful act as a tax official, was believed to be returned as a matter of course even if he submitted resignation. Thus, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff based on the resignation submitted in the above circumstance is defective because it was not based on the plaintiff's genuine intention of resignation, and thus, it was argued that the above resignation was revoked, and that there was no dispute over the situation that the plaintiff was forced to submit the above resignation list to the public official before and after the 10th of the new auction period, and that the plaintiff was forced to submit the new resignation list of the plaintiff 10th of the witness.

If so, even though there was the recommendation of the head of the subordinate tax office, which is the defendant's agency, in the process of the resolution for the submission of the above private staff, such recommendation alone cannot be deemed to have any defect in the decision of free will in the plaintiff's resignation, and even if the motive for the plaintiff to submit the above resignation is asked, the submission itself of the private staff is based on the free will based on his own decision, not on coercion but on his own decision, so the plaintiff's request for this case based on the premise that there is a defect in the plaintiff's intention of resignation is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)