Whether there is a legal interest in seeking invalidation of the removal from position where the removal from position is granted to another position.

If a public official is given a new position after he/she was subject to removal from his/her position because he/she has a reason not to maintain his/her position in the public official, he/she shall be deemed to have been reinstated. Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking nullification of the removal from position on the ground that there is any defect in the removal from position.

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1007 delivered on May 4, 1987

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the plaintiff's removal from the position shall be reversed, and the lawsuit shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal on disciplinary action is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. ex officio spons:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff who was in the position of the citizen state of the first citizen state office and the head of the food sanitation division for three months under Article 65-2 (1) 1 of the Local Public Officials Act was imposed on the plaintiff on March 31, 1986, but the reasons for the dismissal disposition were stated in its holding. The plaintiff's dismissal disposition under Article 69 (1) 2 of the Local Public Officials Act was made on May 24, 1986. The plaintiff's objection against the request for review of the appeal changed the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff on August 7, 1986 to three months from the suspension disposition. The defendant changed the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff on May 24, 1986 to three months from office, and the plaintiff was assigned to the position of the first citizen state office and the second citizen state office and the second citizen state office's dismissal disposition on the ground that the plaintiff was not assigned to the position of the second citizen state office and the second citizen state office.

Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit, which led to the trial of the merits, and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the removal of this case since the court below reversed this part of the judgment below and decided directly by the members, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the removal of this case as seen above.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of disciplinary action.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established a detailed plan for strengthening the above control over the business hours in the 198-year-old entertainment restaurant, etc., according to the public opinion that the above 13-year-old employees could violate the duty of 18-year-old entertainment business hours in the 198-year-old entertainment restaurant, and determined it from that time to that time, but did not reveal any violation of the duty of 2-year-old entertainment center, including December 30, 1985 and January 27, 1986. The above 3-year-old entertainment center was no longer likely to violate the duty of 15-00 to March 21, 1986. The plaintiff was an employee of 16-year-old entertainment center's duty of 16-year-old entertainment business hours, and it was no more appropriate for the plaintiff to have the above 2-year-old entertainment center's duty of 19-year-old employees to control the above 17-day business hours.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of the legal principles as to disciplinary regulations under the Local Public Officials Act, or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to deviation or abuse of discretion, etc. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below reversed the part of the claim for nullification of removal from the position of this case and dismissed the lawsuit, and the plaintiff's appeal as to the revocation of the disciplinary action of this case is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party's assent.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)