Plaintiff 1 and 40 others (Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Water Service Project (Attorney Choi Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 26, 2004

Gwangju District Court Decision 2001Gu1597 Delivered on December 27, 2001

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's ex officio dismissal disposition against the plaintiffs on December 29, 2000 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the court's reasoning for this case is that the plaintiff and the plaintiff are "the plaintiff" of No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the plaintiff and the plaintiff" and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional matters, so they are cited as it is in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters;

The plaintiffs asserted that since Article 62 (1) 3 of the Local Public Officials Act, which the defendant is based on the disposition of this case, is unconstitutional against the purport of the professional public official system under Article 7 (2) of the Constitution, the disposition of this case is also unlawful.

On the other hand, Article 7(2) of the Constitution provides for the system of a public official in order to prevent the suspension of state action due to the change of the government, prevent confusion, and maintain consistency in performing public duties, and its specific contents are delegated by the Constitution and Acts. Article 62(1)3 of the Local Public Officials Act is in accordance with delegation of the above Constitution, and it is within the scope of legislative discretion unless it violates the principle of proportionality or the principle of protection of trust and trust, and it cannot be deemed unconstitutional. In the above case of abolition, division, merger, and organization of a local government or the reduction of budget, it is inevitable to dismiss the relevant public official, and even in such a case, maintaining the organization or division of the relevant public official is not only inconsistent with the purpose to realize low-cost, high-efficiency government efficiency, but also inconsistent with the purpose to dismiss the relevant public official due to the above reasons, and thus, Article 62(1)3 of the Local Public Officials Act cannot be seen as restricting dismissal of the relevant public official in accordance with the above provision of the Local Public Officials Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)