1. Whether the judgment of suspension of qualification has become final and conclusive prior to the enforcement of the Police Officers Act (No. 3606 of December 31, 1982), but the application of Articles 21 and 7(2)5 of the aforementioned Act to a person for whom the said grace period has not elapsed at the time of enforcement of the said Act;

2. Whether a notification of ipso facto retirement is an administrative disposition (negative)

1. It is a clear principle that the retroactive effect cannot be acknowledged to the administrative law, but it is not the application of the amended law to the facts that have already been terminated before the entry into force, but the new administrative law can not be applied to the facts that have already been continued. Thus, even if the suspended sentence was finalized prior to the enforcement of the Police Officers Act (Act No. 3606 of Dec. 31, 1982), if the suspended sentence was not expired at the time of the enforcement of the above Act, it constitutes a disqualified person under Article 7 (2) 5 of the above Act and thus, if the period of suspended sentence is not expired, it shall be legally retired pursuant to Article 21 of the above Act, and this is not the retroactive application of the amended new law to the facts that have already been terminated.

2. The notification of ipso facto retirement is merely a notification of the fact that the existence of grounds for disqualification and the notification of the fact that he/she has retired legally, and does not constitute an administrative disposition which is subject to appeal litigation

1. Article 12(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 7(2) of the Police Officials Act; Article 21(2) of the Police Officials Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 7(2) of the Police Officials Act; Article 21 of the Police Officials Act;

Seoul High Court Decision 79Nu171 delivered on August 21, 1979 (Gong1591 delivered on August 21, 1979) Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Police Officers of the Republic of Korea (Gu) 7 Ka11986Na2633 delivered on August 21, 197

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As of June 10, 1983, the defendant confirmed that the measure that the defendant was exempted from his position in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Police Officers Act against the plaintiff as of June 10, 1983 is null

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

As evidence No. 1, No. 5-2 (Notice of Issuance), No. 3-2 (Notice of Order No. 1), and Evidence No. 4-1, and Evidence No. 4-3 (Final Certificate No. 1), the Plaintiff, as a police officer, was under investigation of the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Police Station and the Head of the Korean Criminal Department No. 6-2 (Order No. 1) and then notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of qualifications under the former Act No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, as a matter of course, at the time of the enactment of the Act No. 1, the former Act No. 1, and the former Act No. 9, No. 2, which became final and conclusive. 1, the lower court’s judgment that became final and conclusive on February 28, 1980, which became final and conclusive on the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 1,000,000 from the Nonparty who had been under investigation by the Head of the Seongbuk-gu Office No. 2, and thus, was dismissed. 1,

Article 12 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that no citizen shall be subject to disadvantageous disposition by retroactive legislation, and this principle should also be applied to statutory interpretation, and that even if no transitional measure is provided for in Article 7 (2) 5 of the new law, it shall not be applied retroactively. Thus, the provisions of Articles 21 and 7 (2) 5 of the new law cannot be applied to the plaintiff for whom the judgment of suspension of qualification becomes final and conclusive before the enforcement of the new law as seen earlier. As such, it is obvious that the defendant's ipso facto disposition by applying the new law cannot be applied retroactively to the new law because it is an unlawful disposition of suspension of qualification for the reason that the new law becomes final and conclusive before the enforcement of the new law, but it is not applicable to the new law that is already concluded before the new law enforcement of the new law. As such, the new law enforcement of the new law enforcement period is not applicable to the new law enforcement of the new law enforcement period of the new law enforcement of the new law. As seen earlier, the new law enforcement of the new law enforcement of the new law.

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit, which is based on the premise that the above notification of ipso facto retirement is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, is dismissed as unlawful, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the plaintiff.

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)