(a) Whether an employee is subject to disciplinary action and appeal regulations against a local public official;

(b) Applicable laws and regulations to public officials in extraordinary civil service due to employment;

(a) An employee specified in attached Table 16 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Rules shall not be subject to the Local Public Officials Disciplinary and Appeal Provisions;

(b)public officials in extraordinary civil service whose employment causes are subject to the Presidential Decree of the Employment Board Regulations;

Article 13 of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations, Article 73-3 of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 6 of the Employment Assistance Regulations (Presidential Decree No. 7941)

Kim Man-ho

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's removal from office against the plaintiff on December 17, 1976 shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

1. The fact that the defendant is removed from office pursuant to Article 67 (1) 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Personnel Rules against the plaintiff on December 17, 1976, and the reason why the plaintiff was dismissed is a local supervisor from the construction division of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, there is no dispute between the parties to the acceptance of bribery amounting to KRW 12,00,000, cash 150,000 provided on the condition that the non-party's control would be changed if the plaintiff was transferred to the site for the purpose of regulating the illegal expansion that is being promoted on the ground of Article 276-3 of the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office around October 1976.

2. First, the Plaintiff is a local public official in extraordinary civil service as prescribed in Article 2(2) of the Local Public Officials Act. According to Article 13 of the Local Public Officials Disciplinary Action and Appeal Regulations, disciplinary action against a local public official in extraordinary civil service who receives a considerable amount of remuneration to public officials of Grades II through V in general service is always subject to the procedure prescribed in the above Local Public Officials Disciplinary Action and Appeal Regulations. The Plaintiff is in extraordinary civil service who receives a salary equivalent to public officials of Grade V in general service, and the Plaintiff must undergo a disciplinary resolution under the above provision. However, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff without undergoing such disciplinary procedure, and the Defendant asserts that this is unlawful disposition and thus, this revocation is sought

However, under Article 73-3 of the Local Public Officials Act, the provisions of this Chapter shall also apply mutatis mutandis to public officials in extraordinary civil service who are not public officials in extraordinary civil service who receive a considerable amount of remuneration for public officials of class V in general service as local supervisors, and they are merely Class II employees specified in attached Table 16 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Rules, and even if they are equivalent to Class V public officials in domestic service, the provisions of this Chapter shall also apply mutatis mutandis to public officials in extraordinary civil service as prescribed by Presidential Decree, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts. Thus, Article 6 (1) of the Employment Assistance Act (Presidential Decree No. 7941) provides that public officials in extraordinary civil service who are in special service for the same reason as the plaintiff shall be subject to the application of the provisions of the Employment Assistance Act (Presidential Decree No. 7941).

3. In other words, on October 1976, the plaintiff investigated whether it was unauthorized during the patrol against the above non-party 276-3-3 ground buildings owned by Jindu-dong 276, which are the above non-party 1's housing. The plaintiff confirmed that the building was extended by the above Jindu-dong 1's construction report under Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act, and confirmed that the building was extended by the above Jindu-dong 1's construction report, which is the owner of the building at the time, and there was no discovery of illegal extension, nor any fact of receiving bribe, entertainment, or entertainment. The defendant asserted that the disciplinary action against the plaintiff was an illegal disposition against the plaintiff who did not have any grounds for the disciplinary action.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Written Ruling) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (Statement statement) which are not disputed in the formation of the house, and the testimony of the above witness, the non-party Jindu has extended 10 square meters in fact even after obtaining permission for the extension of 3 square meters on the above 276-3 premises on the ground of Chang-dong 276-3. Of October 1976, 1976, the non-party Jindu tried to remove the above house at the site of the construction of Jongno-gu Office and 7,8 members (6,7 members of the Ban, the plaintiff, etc. and the plaintiff, etc.) who were aware of these facts, and the above Jindu had no evidence of 12,000 won to remove the house at the Jindo cafeteria 12,000 won, and there was no difference between the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff, who has a duty to regulate illegal buildings, did not take measures for illegal buildings at the site as the removal leader, did not take measures for the illegal buildings, had the removal team receive food from the dust bed, and let the removal team receive the money and neglected the object to be removed, which falls under each subparagraph of Article 67 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Personnel Rules, so the defendant's removal disposition against the plaintiff is legitimate.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)