abuse of the right of disciplinary action of the Board and its illegality

If the disciplinary action taken by the Council against the member of the Myeon Council is remarkably excessive due to the reason for the disciplinary action, such disciplinary action may be taken in an unlawful manner that abuses the right of the disciplinary action.

Articles 47, 49, and 50 of the Local Autonomy Act

Plaintiff

Gangnam-gu Round

Daegu High Court Decision 54Ra7 delivered on July 16, 1954

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The ground of appeal by the defendant is that the first point appellant's ground of appeal was in violation of the rules of evidence, namely, the ground of disciplinary action against the first point appellant-Appellee, i.e., the Myeon Police Branch in relation to the decision-making of the free dong District in the short-term 12 February 4287.In the face of the Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-won's Myeong-Appellant's Myeong-won's Myeong-Appellant's Myeong-Appellant's Myeong-Appellant's Myeong-Appellant's Myeong-Appellant's Myeong-Appellant's Myeong-Appellant's son's son's Myeong-Appellant's son's son's son's k.

Even if the reconvener Plaintiff spreads the same reargument as that of the reargument, even if the fact constitutes a disciplinary action, the fact that the fact alone is sufficient to the extent that it does not constitute a disciplinary action, and thus, the signature disposition in this case is considered to be an illegal disposition that the Defendant Council abused its disciplinary power. Accordingly, when considering the original judgment in light of the above purport, the lower court did not allow the Defendant’s proof as to the grounds for disciplinary action and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim from the perspective of the previous opinion and the same purport, and therefore, it did not err in the misapprehension of law as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, and it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 401, Article 89, Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)