(a) The validity of disciplinary procedures followed without sending a copy of a request for disciplinary decision in punishing a public educational official;

(b) When a copy of the request for disciplinary decision is to be sent to the discipline accused person.

(c) Where a discipline accused person renounces his right to state his opinion or refuses to receive a written notice of appearance, disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to have waived his right to state.

A. According to Article 6(3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials, a person with authority to request a disciplinary decision shall, at the same time, send a copy of a written request for a disciplinary decision by a public educational official stating grounds for the disciplinary decision and the opinion of the person with authority to request a disciplinary decision. Thus, the procedure conducted without sending a copy

B. In light of the legislative intent of the above provision, when the disciplinary committee intends to make the suspect prepare for the disciplinary committee to properly defend the case by having the suspect know in advance of the request for the disciplinary decision for a certain reason, a copy of the request for the disciplinary decision is sufficient if it is sent with sufficient time to the extent that it does not interfere with the suspect's exercise of right to defense prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee, and it is not necessary to send the request for the disciplinary decision simultaneously.

(c) Where a discipline accused person renounces his/her right to make a statement or refuses to receive a notice of attendance and thus is deemed to waive his/her right to make a statement even though the disciplinary committee intends to send a notice of attendance to a discipline accused person and give him/her an opportunity to make a sufficient statement, the disciplinary committee may thereafter make a decision on discipline accused person by documentary examination without any need for the notice

(b)Paragraph 3 (c) of Article 6 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials; Articles 8, paragraph 1, 8, paragraph 3, and 8, paragraph 7, of the Decree;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17426 delivered on June 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2154) (Gong194 delivered on December 14, 1993), 93Nu15045 delivered on December 14, 1993 (Gong1994 delivered on October 26, 198). Supreme Court Decision 82Nu298 delivered on October 26, 198 (Gong1983,57) (Gong1993Ha, 1891 delivered on May 25, 1993)

Plaintiff 1 and nine others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jong-il

Attorney Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 89Gu2677 delivered on June 16, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiffs' attorney

1. As to Plaintiff 2:

(1) According to Article 6(3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials, a person with authority to request a disciplinary decision, at the same time, provides that a copy of the request for a disciplinary decision by a public educational official stating grounds for the disciplinary decision and the opinion of the person with authority to request a disciplinary decision shall be sent to a discipline accused person. Thus, the proceedings conducted without sending a copy of the above request for a disciplinary decision is identical to that of a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17426, Jun. 25, 1993). However, when considering the legislative intent of the above provision in order to make a discipline accused person be prepared to defend him/her appropriately, by having the disciplinary committee know in advance of whether the request for a disciplinary decision was made for any reason, the copy of the request for a disciplinary decision shall not be sufficient if it is sent with sufficient time to the extent that it does not interfere with the exercise of the person’s right to defense before the disciplinary committee is held.

According to the evidence employed by the court below and Eul evidence No. 8-4 (Request for Disciplinary Decision) without any dispute over the establishment of the court below, the school chief of Ulsan-si Office of Education was the school principal of Ulsan-do Office of Education who was employed by the above plaintiff on July 12, 1989 and tried to deliver the above plaintiff a notice of attendance of the Disciplinary Committee on July 14, 1989, but the above plaintiff refused to receive the above plaintiff. Thus, on July 13, 197, the principal of the above middle school was sent a copy of the letter of request for disciplinary decision accompanied by the disciplinary reasons to the above plaintiff's address and the notice of attendance was sent to the above plaintiff around that time. However, on July 14, 200, the above plaintiff's disciplinary committee was changed to July 22, 200, the principal of the school department belonging to the school principal and the above school principal were not present at school and the above school principal could not receive the above plaintiff's notice of request for disciplinary decision again to the above plaintiff.

(2) Article 8(3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials provides that when a person under disciplinary action does not wish to make a statement at the disciplinary committee, the disciplinary committee may request the person under disciplinary action to submit a written waiver of his/her right to make a statement and make a resolution on disciplinary action in writing only. The main text of paragraph (7) provides that if a person under disciplinary action refuses to receive a written notice of attendance, the person under disciplinary action shall be deemed to waive his/her right to make a statement at the disciplinary committee. Thus, if the disciplinary committee intends to send a written notice of attendance to the person under disciplinary action and give the person under disciplinary action an opportunity to make a sufficient statement but it is deemed that the person under disciplinary action waives his/her right to make a statement or refuses to receive a written notice of attendance, the disciplinary committee may make a resolution on disciplinary action only in writing without the need for the person under disciplinary action to make a written notice of attendance (see

Therefore, as seen earlier, insofar as the above plaintiff refused to receive a notice of attendance of the Disciplinary Committee on July 22, 200, the disciplinary committee did not hold a scheduled meeting and did not make a subsequent notice of attendance to the above plaintiff on July 22, 200, and the disciplinary committee held on July 24 without holding a new notice of attendance to the above plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that there was an error in violation of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the disciplinary procedure, and therefore there is no reason to discuss this point.

B. As to Plaintiff 3:

The court below found that the above plaintiff refused to receive a notice of attendance by the Disciplinary Committee on July 5, 1989 (1) and is detained in a criminal case, and that the above plaintiff was an assistant principal and student of the Ulsan-gun High School located in his/her work as the investigation department of the Ulsan-gun High School and issued the second notice of attendance to him/her. If the above plaintiff was able to read the contents of the plaintiff and be removed from office, and refused to affix a seal during his/her receipt. The disciplinary committee later rejected a written notice of disciplinary decision if the suspect is unable to attend within 50 days due to detention or travel due to overseas materials or criminal cases, it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disciplinary committee's decision as stated in Article 10 (5) of the Decree on Disciplinary Punishment of Public Educational Officials that the disciplinary committee may make a disciplinary decision in writing. If the court below's records and examination of the evidence are conducted, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts that the plaintiff did not receive the above notice of disciplinary decision.

C. As to Plaintiff 4:

The court below found that the above maximum school scholarship officer tried to issue a notice of attendance of the Disciplinary Committee (the first) to the above plaintiff on July 12, 1989 (a clerical error in the 7.8th of July) and sent the above plaintiff a notice of attendance to the above plaintiff on July 15, 200, and sent the above plaintiff a notice of attendance of the Disciplinary Committee (the second) to the above plaintiff on July 15, 200, but sent the above plaintiff a notice of attendance of the Disciplinary Committee (the second). However, the above plaintiff sent the return of the school's death to the above plaintiff. After 7.18. (7. 24.) was held, the disciplinary decision against the above plaintiff was legitimate. If the court below reviewed the evidence prepared by the records, the court below's finding of facts as above is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence and finding facts as to the plaintiff's refusal to receive the disciplinary decision as to the above plaintiff's 4th of the disciplinary committee.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The facts are duly determined by the court below, and if the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs were decided by the court below, the plaintiffs' motive to join the National Teachers' Union is from the educational person's conscience to guarantee the right to survival of teachers and to solve serious educational problems, the court below held that the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be unlawful by exceeding the scope of discretion or abusing discretionary power, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no ground for discussion.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)