(영문) 광주고등법원 제주재판부 2015.6.10. 선고 2015누13 판결

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that the "won" in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as a "member", and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that for the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it shall be admitted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff actually received benefits not only the entire cost of services but also the opportunity to provide services, and that the service itself faithfully performed, the removal disposition is illegal as it deviates from or abused discretion.

B. Determination

In a case where a disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary authority’s discretion belongs to the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, and the disciplinary action upon which the person having authority to take the disciplinary action exercises discretionary authority is deemed unlawful only when it is recognized that the person has abused discretionary authority by substantially losing validity under social norms. In order for a disciplinary action against a public official to have substantially lost validity under social norms, the content and nature of the disciplinary action should be determined that the disciplinary action is objectively and clearly unreasonable in light of various factors, including the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved through the disciplinary action, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc. depending on the specific case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du29540, Feb. 27, 2014; 201Du16172, Nov. 11, 201). In addition, the same shall not apply in cases where it is sufficiently recognized even if other grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized (see, etc.

In this case, the plaintiff was in the position of professor of the national university who is a public educational official even if he was not commissioned as a review committee member, and was in the position requiring high level of loyalty and integrity. ② Even though the bribe received by the plaintiff in the related criminal trial was judged as "an opportunity to receive the price" rather than "service fees", the service fees received by the plaintiff constitutes a large amount of service fees received by the plaintiff using the opportunity. ③ The plaintiff entered into a service contract through the status of review committee members, ③ the above act was in a public educational official's honor, the duty of good faith, the degree of violation of integrity, and the degree of violation of the duty of integrity, ④ The plaintiff's misconduct is very important. ④ The plaintiff's punishment equivalent to dismissal based on a disciplinary decision due to a severe degree of misconduct, and the judgment became final and conclusive after being sentenced two years of imprisonment with prison labor in the final criminal judgment, which constitutes grounds for ipso facto retirement under the State Public Officials Act, ⑤ The need to eradicate the above act of bribery to establish the prevention of similar cases in the future and the public office.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.