(a) Whether the head of Busan Customs Office has a right to be subject to disciplinary dismissal against the public officials of Grade V (Gu) belonging thereto (affirmative);

(b) whether the dismissal from office is included in the "replacement" as stipulated in the proviso of Article 2 of the Customs Service Directive (negative);

A. Article 2 subparag. 4(a) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials (Presidential Decree No. 9642, Oct. 13, 1979); Article 2 subparag. 4(a) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials (Presidential Decree No. 3150, Dec. 5, 1978) delegates the authority to appoint public officials of Grade 5(3) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 32(3) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials; Article 5(1) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials; Article 80-135 of the Customs Directive of the Korea Customs Service Directive to the head of Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Gwangju, Incheon, and Kimpo (excluding promotion and dismissal rights, but including removal rights). Accordingly, the head of Busan Customs Office is authorized to take disciplinary dismissal measures against public officials of Grade 5(3) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials.

(b)Guidance 80 - Removal from office as set out in the proviso of Article 2 of the Customs Service Directive No. 135, does not include removal;

(a) Article 32 of the State Public Officials Act (Law No. 3150 of December 5, 1978), Article 2 of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials (Presidential Decree No. 9642 of October 3, 1979), Article 5 of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials, Article 82, Article 2, Article 80-135 and Article 2 of the Directive of the Korea Customs Service, Article 80-135 and Article 2 of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Busan Customs Office (Attorney Jeong Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu238 delivered on April 14, 1981

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the judgment below, the court below's right to dismiss public officials of Grade 5 at the time of this case (No. 5, Dec. 5, 1978) and Article 32 (2) of the State Public Officials Act provides that public officials of Grade 5 shall have all the authority to appoint public officials other than the preceding paragraph, and the competent Minister shall delegate part of such authority to the head of the agency under the conditions as prescribed by the President. Article 5 (1) of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials of Grade 5 (Presidential Decree No. 9642, Oct. 13, 1979) provides that the head of the agency under the jurisdiction of Grade 5 (the head of the agency under the jurisdiction of Grade 5) shall be excluded from the authority to dismiss public officials of Grade 1 and Grade 4 and the authority to appoint public officials of Grade 5 (the head of the agency under the authority to appoint public officials shall be excluded from the authority to dismiss public officials of Grade 5 (the authority to appoint public officials of Grade 8).

2. However, according to Article 2 subparagraph 4 Item A of the above Decree on Appointment of Public Officials, the head of the office, a central administrative agency, shall be "competent Minister" as stipulated in Article 32 (1) through (3) of the State Public Officials Act. Thus, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service may delegate his/her authority for appointment of Grade IV and Grade V public officials to the head of the office in Busan pursuant to Article 32 (3) of the above Decree on Appointment of Public Officials. According to Article 80-135 of the Korea Customs Service Directive Article 2 of the above Decree on Appointment of Public Officials, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service shall delegate his/her authority for appointment of Grade IV and Grade V public officials to the head of Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Daegu, Gwangju, Incheon, and Kimpo, but it excludes the authority for appointment and dismissal of Grade IV and Grade V public officials. Thus, according to Article 2 (1) 1 of the above Decree on Appointment of Public Officials, "Appointment" means new appointment, promotion, transfer, change of position, dismissal, dismissal, dismissal, and removal from office.

Nevertheless, under the view that the defendant did not have the authority to dismiss the plaintiff, the court below revoked the defendant's removal of the plaintiff in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the above State Public Officials Act, the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials, and the Directive No. 80-135 of the Korea Customs Service, and it is obvious that this misunderstanding

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)