[1] Whether a public official is exempt from the duty to obey under Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act because he/she is in full-time position of a trade union (negative), and the requirements to constitute an effective order that generates the duty to obey an order where an official order on the full-time officer of a trade union covers matters belonging to the legitimate

[2] The meaning of "influence" under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act

[3] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in a case where full-time officer Gap of a public official trade union violated the duty of obeying public officials and the duty of maintain dignity by leading the public opinion in the event related to the trade union, the head of the agency under his jurisdiction suspended Gap from office, since the order prohibiting the implementation of public opinion cannot be deemed as a ground for disciplinary action which did not constitute an official order causing the duty of obey, and Gap's act does not constitute an act impairing public official'

[1] According to Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 49 of the Local Public Officials Act, a public official shall obey an official order of superior public officials in performing his/her duties. On the other hand, even if a public official is exempted from his/her duty to provide labor as a full-time officer of a labor union under Article 7 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials' Unions, it is meaningful to guarantee that he/she is in full-time officer of a labor union to concentrate on legitimate labor union activities as a full-time officer. Thus, the above duty to obey orders cannot be entirely exempted because he/she is in full-time officer of a labor union. However, since the legitimate activities of a labor union are guaranteed under the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Public Officials' Unions, if an official order of a labor union is subject to matters falling under the legitimate activities of a labor union, such order constitutes an effective order that causes the duty to obey orders, unless there are special circumstances such as smooth performance

[2] All public officials shall not commit any act detrimental to their dignity, regardless of whether it is on or off duty, pursuant to Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act. Here, dignity refers to a person who does not have a knife because he/she takes charge of his/her duties as a trustee of the nation who is a sovereign.

[3] In a case where the head of the agency with which the full-time officer Gap of a public official labor union violated the duty of obeying public officials and the duty of maintaining dignity by leading the public officials in a labor union-related event, the case affirming the judgment below that Gap's act does not constitute an act impairing public officials' dignity, in full view of the following: (a) since the order prohibiting public officials from executing a civil case cannot be deemed as a valid official order giving rise to the duty of obeying one's labor union activities; (b) it cannot be deemed as a violation of the duty of obeying public order; and (c) it is difficult to see that the performance of public official's duties or the trust of the whole public service society conducted at courtesy within the scope of legitimate labor union activities without political expression of opinions; and (d) it does not constitute an act impairing public officials' dignity.

[1] Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 49 of the Local Public Officials Act, Articles 3 and 7 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials' Unions / [2] Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act / [3] Articles 57 and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, Articles 49 and 55 of the Local Public Officials Act, Articles 3 and 7 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials' Unions

[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu18172 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 926)

Plaintiff

Jeonju Market (Attorney Jeon Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court ( Jeonju) Decision 2011Nu216 decided July 18, 201

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 49 of the Local Public Officials Act, a public official shall obey an official order of superior public officials in performing his/her duties. Meanwhile, even if a public official is exempted from his/her duty to provide labor as a full-time officer of a labor union under Article 7 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials' Unions, it is meaningful to guarantee that he/she is in full-time officer of a labor union to concentrate on legitimate labor union activities. Thus, the above duty to obey orders cannot be entirely exempted on the ground that he/she is in full-time officer of a labor union (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13626, Oct. 9, 2008). However, since the legitimate activities of a public official labor union are guaranteed under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials' Unions, if an order on the full-time officer of a labor union covers matters within the legitimate scope of the labor union, such order constitutes an effective order to obey official duties.

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below determined that the order of this case where the defendant's order prohibiting the execution of the so-called civil procedure against the public officials belonging to such public officials including the plaintiff is valid to the extent of matters belonging to the plaintiff's scope, but if the order of this case is subject to the plaintiff's legitimate activities of the labor union, the order of this case cannot be deemed valid as an official order. However, regardless of the plaintiff's public duties, the plaintiff's leading to the execution of civil procedure is merely an ordinary and ordinary trade union activity conducted as the full-time officer of the labor union, and it cannot be deemed that the execution of civil procedure itself goes beyond the scope of legitimate trade union activities. Thus, the order of this case cannot be deemed as an official order that causes the plaintiff's duty to obey the plaintiff's labor union activities, and therefore cannot be deemed as a ground for disciplinary action that

In addition to the above circumstances, the court below's above determination is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal nature of the order of this case or the duty to obey it, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, in light of the legal principles as to the legal nature of the order of this case or the duty to obey it.

2. All public officials shall not commit any act detrimental to their dignity, regardless of whether it is on or off duty, pursuant to Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act. Here, the term "quality" refers to a person who does not have a knife because he is entrusted with the position of the citizen as a sovereign (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu18172 delivered on February 27, 1998, etc.).

The lower court determined that, in light of the fact that the implementation of a public ceremony is difficult to be deemed directly up to what ideological and political inclinations it is in itself, the Plaintiff’s leading contents cannot be deemed to include the contents that may impair the dignity of public officials, and that the class and duty of public officials who can join a labor union is limited to those of public officials who are admitted to a labor union itself, the impact on the public trust of the entire public service society and public officials on the execution of their duties can only be limited if a public official who joined a labor union conducts a public figure within the scope of a labor union itself, and that the Plaintiff led a public figure in an event held as part of the organization of a labor union of public officials, and that the Plaintiff did not seem to include a public figure or a particular political expression of opinion. In so doing, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s refusal to implement a public figure in comparison with a public official’s own exercise within the scope of a labor union’s legitimate expression of opinion or an act that does not constitute a legitimate execution of a public official’s work within the scope of the entire public service of a labor union.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to maintain dignity as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)