The case holding that removal on account of minor acceptance of money and valuables on duty is illegal;

The plaintiffs filed an application for change of the place of opening a subscription telephone with the above non-party's office before the non-party's office, and it is recognized that the change was modified without the request of the change, and it was appropriated for the point value of labor workers by receiving 3,000 won. However, the plaintiffs' act of this case was erroneous, but if there was an application for change of the place of opening the above subscription telephone, most of the acts of this case are approved unless there are special circumstances, and the motive for the act of this case, which the plaintiff et al. worked in the front of the above non-party's office for 8 and 9 years, has been too far after the work, and it was done upon the request of the above non-party's office, should be considered as an illegal disposition deviating from the discretion of disciplinary action.

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-at-law

The director general of the Cheongyang-ri telegraph and telephone bureau shall be the litigation performer Kim-sik, leap, and Kim Doo

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu203 delivered on November 23, 1976

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff et al. are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have exceeded the discretion of disciplinary action, even though the plaintiff et al. received 3,00 won from the plaintiff et al. from the plaintiff et al. for a long time, inasmuch as the above facts are recognized, since the plaintiff et al. received 3,00 won from the plaintiff et al. to the plaintiff et al., although the non-party Kim-soo et al. received a request to change the location of the house telephone or office telephone of the Dong and received approval for the change of the location of the building.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff et al. submitted an application for change of the location of the above phone to the telephone station as soon as he et al. passes ahead of the office of the above Kim Jong-soo and the office of the above Kim Jong-si. Thus, the court below should have reviewed and determined whether the above money received by the plaintiff et al. would be approved unless there are any special circumstances, and if there is a fact that the above money was appropriated for the core value of the worker et al., then the plaintiff et al. would be recognized, the above act of objection by the plaintiff et al. was committed, but if the plaintiff et al. worked in the office of the above Kim Jong-dong and the office of the above Kim Jong-dong, and the fact that the plaintiff et al. was achieved upon the request of the above person, the defendant et al. should be deemed to be an unlawful disposition of dismissal by disciplinary action against the plaintiff et al., and therefore, the court below's decision is reversed due to the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the appeal and the decision.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)