(a) The nature of a new request for disciplinary action made after the invalidation of disciplinary action is determined on the grounds that the disciplinary action was invalidated due to a deviation of the discretionary limit of disciplinary action

B. Whether the invalidation of a disciplinary action given an opportunity to vindicate and give another opportunity to defend himself/herself prior to the disciplinary decision re-established after the disciplinary action becomes final and conclusive (negative)

1. Where a judgment of invalidation becomes final and conclusive on the grounds that the disciplinary dismissal disposition was conducted within a legitimate period of prescription, but the relevant disposition deviates from the discretionary limit of disciplinary action, the disposition of suspension from office upon request for a new disciplinary action is merely a modification of the details of the legally demanded disciplinary resolution, instead of the request for a new disciplinary resolution, and thus, it can be made even after the expiration of the period of prescription from

2. As long as the Plaintiff provided an opportunity to defend himself/herself for a resolution on disciplinary action prior to the dismissal, it is not erroneous for the Plaintiff to give him/her an opportunity to defend himself/herself.

Article 7 of the Guidelines for Handling Disciplinary Affairs of National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu189 delivered on August 19, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 73Nu12 delivered on September 25, 1973

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2663 delivered on November 3, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, while the plaintiff was appointed and promoted as a staff member of the defendant federation on September 11, 1961 and worked for Class II as a class, the plaintiff was ordered to receive 50,000 won from the non-party who is a person in charge of the accounting of the Dong Industrial Company, a related business operator around February 1976, the duty of integrity and the duty of integrity that the employee is prohibited from receiving a donation in relation to his duties under Articles 7 and 8 of the General Personnel Committee of the defendant federation's work regulations, and the duty of integrity and behavior to maintain dignity so as not to undermine the reputation and dignity of the defendant federation, and the defendant was subject to a disciplinary dismissal disposition by the defendant on July 3, 1976, and the plaintiff and the defendant requested a review from the defendant disciplinary committee on July 97, 197 that the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff et al. was revoked by a resolution of the Seoul Disciplinary Committee's ex officio dismissal of the disciplinary action against the plaintiff's ground for disciplinary action 97.

2. As above, the first disciplinary action deviates from the discretionary limit of a disciplinary action, and after the judgment that the disciplinary action is null and void, it cannot be deemed that it goes against the res judicata of the above final judgment or violates the res judicata principle, and it does not constitute a violation of the grounds for disciplinary action against the same disciplinary action. The court below's decision that the grounds for disciplinary action against the chief of the personnel affairs division's request for a review on September 19, 1979 is justified, and it does not constitute a new disciplinary action, but a correction of the contents of the legally required disciplinary decision (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu189 delivered on August 19, 1980). Article 7 of the Guidelines for Handling the disciplinary action of the defendant National Federation provides that the request for a disciplinary action cannot be exercised if two years have passed since the date on which the grounds for disciplinary action occurred, and it is clear that the above period of disciplinary action was lawfully exercised before the expiration of the above period, and therefore, the court below's decision that the new disciplinary action period has not been adopted as a new disciplinary action against the party.

3. According to the main sentence of Article 10 of the Personnel Regulations of the defendant National Federation, the personnel order shall not be issued retrospectively in the event of the change of the original disciplinary measure in accordance with the result of reexamination of disciplinary action. As such, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the judgment of the court below, and there is no such error in the legal theory, and the records show that the plaintiff had an opportunity to defend himself in the decision of the suspension of duty. However, as seen above, the personnel committee had already provided the opportunity to defend himself in the decision of the suspension of duty, so long as the plaintiff had already been given the opportunity to defend himself, it cannot be deemed illegal because it did not give the same opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error in the law as to this.

4. According to the records, the employees belonging to the defendant, such as the theory of lawsuit, are generally to raise a salary according to the number of years of service, or in this case, even if there are grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff, so the court below's just measures that did not meet the standards for the promotion of salary in calculating the salary are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)