Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Dasan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (Law Firm Indones, Attorneys Ba-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 9, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s suspension from office against Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 on September 2, 2011, revoked the one-month salary reduction disposition against Plaintiffs 3, 4, 6, and 7 on September 2, 201 against Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3, and against Plaintiffs 9, and 10 on September 2, 201.

1. Details of the disciplinary action in this case

A. The Plaintiffs are those who worked in the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “Human Rights Commission”) as stated in the table of employment classes and present workplace of the Plaintiffs.

본문내 포함된 표 순번 원고 채용일자 채용직급 현 근무처 1 원고 1 2002. 9. 2. 5급 상당(소속 1 생략) □□□□□□과 2006. 1. 12. 5급 2 원고 2 2006. 3. 20. 5급 ◇◇◇◇과 3 원고 3 2003. 10. 7. 전문계약직 나급 ☆☆☆☆과 2006. 6. 27. 5급 4 원고 4 1992. 10. 1. 9급(소속 2 생략) □□□□□□과(6급) 5 원고 5 2007. 7. 1. 7급 ◎◎인권사무소 6 원고 6 2006. 6. 13. 5급 ☆☆☆☆과 7 원고 7 2002. 4. 17. 6급 상당(소속 3 생략) 휴직 중 2006. 1. 12. 6급 8 원고 8 2002. 4. 17. 7급 상당(소속 4 생략) ◁◁인권사무소(6급) 9 원고 9 2002. 4. 16. 6급 상당(소속 5 생략) ▷▷▷▷과 10 원고 10 2003. 10. 8. 6급 상당(소속 5 생략) ♤♤♤♤과 11 원고 11 2002. 4. 1. 7급 상당(소속 3 생략) ◈◈◈◈과(6급 상당)

B. On September 2, 2011, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure against Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 9 on the ground that “The Plaintiff collectively criticized the decision to refuse the extension of the contract against Nonparty 1, while taking advantage of the clocket in front of the Office of Human Rights; ○○ News, etc. puts comments on the above decision and criticism of the Human Rights Council; ○○ News, etc. puts on the bulletin board of the Ministry of Human Rights, and displayed the above clock on the first floor of the office building of the Human Rights Council; and ○○ News, etc. on the front of the office building,” on the ground that the Defendant violated the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act and violated the duty to prohibit collective action under Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act against Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 9, 1, 3, 4, 5, 5, and 10 for one month of suspension, three months of salary reduction, two months of salary reduction, 8, and 11 month of salary reduction.”

C. Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee. On January 11, 2012, the said committee changed the disposition of Plaintiff 4 with salary reduction for 3 months, and the disposition of salary reduction for 3 months against Plaintiff 5 to salary reduction for 1 month, but the remaining Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed.

D. Plaintiffs 9, 10, and 11 filed a petition with the Human Rights Commission for a trial. On February 14, 2012, the said Administrative Appeals Commission changed the disciplinary action against Plaintiffs 9 from one month of suspension from office to three months of reduction of salary, but the remaining Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 11, Gap evidence 2-1 to 11, Gap evidence 3-1 to 11, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 10-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disciplinary action is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) As to procedural defects

According to the rules on disciplinary action for the Human Rights Commission, there is a right to request reexamination against a discipline accused person, and the defendant constituted the Reexamination Committee by having the same members as the disciplinary committee. Accordingly, the defendant violated the plaintiffs' right to request reexamination by de facto eliminating the right to request reexamination as prescribed by the above disciplinary rules, and thus the disciplinary action in this case is unlawful.

2) As to the grounds for disciplinary action

A) As to the violation of the duty of prohibition of collective action

Since the plaintiffs' one-person demonstration and ○○ News acts are not limited to the same time and place, they do not constitute a group act prohibited under Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act.

In addition, “collective action for activities other than public duties” under the above provision is a collective action that may affect the duty of loyalty for the purpose of going against the public interest, and the plaintiffs’ act is aimed at establishing the Human Rights Council as an institution to protect human rights in line with the purpose of its establishment. As such, the plaintiffs’ act is consistent with the public interest and is not committed while neglecting the plaintiffs’ duty, and thus, it does not violate the duty of integrity.

B) On the violation of the duty to maintain dignity

While the Human Rights Commission was under international and social criticism, the Plaintiffs were engaged in one demonstration and ○○ News, etc. for the purpose of establishing an institution to protect human rights in line with the purpose of its establishment. Therefore, the purpose of the demonstration is consistent with the public interest. The contents of the demonstration are nothing more than the expression of the Plaintiffs’ opinions, and thus, the act is included by freedom of expression.

In light of the purpose and contents of the aforementioned expressive act, it is highly probable for the general public to understand that there is a conflict of opinion within the Human Rights Commission and that conflict is settled, and to recognize the Human Rights Commission as an institution that protects universal human rights. Therefore, the Plaintiffs did not commit an act of damaging public officials’ body or dignity or impairing trust from the public by exposing internal conflicts within the organization.

Therefore, even if the plaintiffs criticizes the internal issues of the organization, the plaintiffs' act cannot be deemed to violate the duty to maintain dignity.

3) As to a disciplinary decision

In light of the fact that the plaintiffs' act is recognized as being urged to communicate and reflect on human rights and that the act was committed in peace within the permissible range according to the freedom of expression, compared with other serious misconducts such as receiving money and valuables, sexual violence, etc., the disciplinary action in this case is unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretion.

In addition, the Defendant’s first stage of external press, and the first stage of one of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, and the first stage of one of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, and the first stage of the demonstration, deemed the plaintiff 3, who was first posted on the computer network within the Human Rights Council, and was subject to a heavy suspension. Even if the plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 first stage of the act, the above plaintiffs’ act was an independent act unrelated to other plaintiffs’ act, and thus, it cannot be deemed the lead of the above plaintiffs. The first stage of the first stage of the demonstration was the non-party 2, and the criteria for the Defendant’s disciplinary action, such as deeming the plaintiff 2, who was the first stage of the first stage of the demonstration, to be the lead of the second stage of the defect of resignation, was

B. Relevant statutes

/ The State Public Officials Act

Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) No public official shall commit any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is for his/her duties.

Article 66 (Prohibition of Collective Activities)

(1) No public official shall engage in any collective activity for any labor campaign, or activities, other than public services: Provided, That those who are actually engaged in labor shall be excluded herefrom.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each evidence, Gap evidence No. 12-1 to 3, Eul evidence No. 12-1, Eul evidence No. 3-1 to 21, Eul evidence No. 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of non-party No. 2.

1) Refusal to extend the contract term to Nonparty 1

A) On April 1, 2002, Nonparty 1 served as a public official in special service equivalent to Grade VII on human rights, and entered into an employment contract with the Human Rights Council and the contract period until March 1, 2006 (class 6), with the General Public Officials in contractual service (class 6), with the contract period extended by March 2, 2006 until March 1, 2009, and entered into an employment contract with the contract period extended by March 2, 2006, with the contract period extended by March 1, 2009, respectively.

B) On January 28, 201, the Human Rights Commission decided not to renew a contract with Nonparty 1. On the same day, the Human Rights Commission notified Nonparty 1 that the employment contract is terminated as of March 1, 2011.

2) The instant act

A) One demonstration, etc.

(1) On February 14, 2011, Nonparty 2, who was an investigator of the Human Rights Tribunal, was unable to receive the extension of the contract period as above, made one person’s demonstration using a kicket stating that “any person is present at his/her own seat, stowing interest and vindication. However, the Human Rights Tribunal does not cut off any person.” On the same day, Nonparty 1 respondeded to criticism in ○○○○ News on February 16, 201 (after Nonparty 2 retired on February 16, 201), and Plaintiff 1 criticized him/her on February 14, 201, as shown in the separate sheet.

(2) 원고 2는 2011. 2. 15. 점심시간에 인권위 청사 앞에서 별지 기재 피켓 문구 내용이 기재된 피켓을 들고 1인 시위를 하였고, 그 뒤를 이어 나머지 원고들도 2011. 2. 17.부터 2011. 3. 2.까지 점심시간에 인권위 청사 앞에서 별지 기재 피켓 문구 내용이 기재된 피켓을 들고 별지 기재 각 일시에 각자 1인 시위를 하였다(다만 2011. 3. 2.에는 인권위 청사 앞에서 원고 6이, ◎◎인권사무소 청사 앞에서 원고 5가, ◁◁인권사무소 청사 앞에서 원고 8이 각각 1인 시위를 하였다).

B) ○○ News’s height

On February 15, 201, Plaintiff 2, on the ○○ News, published a letter of criticism of the Human Rights Council, including a photo, which marks one person’s own stage of demonstration on February 15, 201, and the rest of the plaintiffs, as shown in the attached Form, expressed in ○○ News, a photograph of Nonparty 1’s refusal to extend the contract period against Nonparty 1 and a single person’s reading of the Human Rights Council. On the day of each person’s demonstration, Plaintiff 2 published a copy of a one person’s demonstration, and the plaintiffs written a letter of the same contents as shown in the attached Form.

(C)ket display;

At around 08:30 on February 28, 201, Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 11, 7, 9, and 4 collected a ticket used in the first floor of the Human Rights Council building as above from February 28, 201, and displayed the above ticket on the delivery of the Human Rights Council building from around 09:40 to 13:00 on the same day.

D) Publication of ○○ News in the internal computer network of the Human Rights Council

On February 24, 2011, Plaintiff 3 puts comments on ○○ News on the internal computer network of the Human Rights Council, and the rest of the Plaintiffs also puts on the above internal computer network (hereinafter the Plaintiffs’ aforementioned activities) as written in the attached sheet.

3) Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 asserted against the Republic of Korea that the rejection of the extension of the contract term by the Human Rights Council (Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap9072) constituted an unfair dismissal, and filed a claim for confirmation of public official status against the Republic of Korea. The above court dismissed Nonparty 1’s claim on the ground that Nonparty 1 lost his status as a public official due to the expiration of the contract term due to the absence of the expectation right for extension of the contract, and the said

(d) Markets:

1) Determination of procedural defects

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a provision that the composition of the Review Committee shall be different from that of the Disciplinary Committee under the Regulations on the Punishment of Human Rights. In general, the review of a discipline accused person is conducted again by the same agency and thus it is difficult to treat the same as the court's trial procedure at different levels, it is difficult to deem that the right to request reexamination by the plaintiffs was infringed solely on the fact

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

2) Determination as to the existence of grounds for disciplinary action

A) As to the violation of the duty of prohibition of collective action

Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act prohibits “collective action other than public service” refers to an act in a state that does not reach the formation stage of an organization with a specific purpose that undermines the essence of public service, such as undermining the discipline of duties or violating this part of a public official (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9145, Mar. 27, 1992, etc.). A group prohibited by the State Public Officials Act refers to an act in a state where a group is not formed by multiple persons for a specific purpose, such as undermining the essence of public service (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9145, Mar. 27, 1992, etc.). It does not necessarily mean “collective action prohibited by the State Public Officials Act,” in the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which means “temporary gathering of a specific or unspecified

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the overall purport of arguments, i.e., (ii) the remaining Plaintiffs and Nonparty 2 retired from the office buildings other than Plaintiff 5 and Plaintiff 8 did not overlap before February 14, 2011 to March 2, 2011; and (iii) on the same day, ○○○ News was put in writing without prior consultation; (iv) it is difficult to understand that one person’s act was committed continuously and continuously before the Office of Human Rights; and (v) one person’s act was committed in collusion with the one person’s own news to the effect that one person’s act was committed on March 2, 201, and the other person’s act was committed in collusion with the first person’s news on the same day; and (v) it was reasonable for the Plaintiffs to have agreed on the first person’s last day of the demonstration.

In addition, as seen earlier, the instant act constitutes an act detrimental to the nature of official duties by violating the duty to maintain the dignity of a public official or by impeding or violating the duty to maintain the dignity of the public official, and thus, the Plaintiffs ultimately violated the duty to prohibit collective action for activities other than official duties under Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act, and this constitutes legitimate grounds for disciplinary action.

B) As to the breach of duty to maintain dignity

Although a public official’s expression of his/her external opinion that criticizes his/her commercial affairs, etc. is helpful to the improvement and development of the administrative organization, and ultimately contributes to the appropriateness of the exercise of authority by the administrative agency, such expression itself may serve as a factor to undermine the people’s trust in administration, regardless of its authenticity or legitimacy, regardless of its contents, in cases where there is a doubt about the authenticity in the contents of the announcement, or where there is an excessively decent and exaggerated part in the contents of the announcement, the expression itself itself is highly likely to lead the people to lose the people’s trust in administration by having questions about the fairness, impartiality, and prudentialness of the entire administrative organization as well as the public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du704, Aug. 24, 2001).

In light of the following circumstances, the instant act is likely to cause the people to lose their trust in administration by pointing out the fairness, integrity, etc. of the entire public officials belonging to the Human Rights Council due to the instant act, and thus, the instant act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, as it violates the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act.

(1) 피켓, △△신문 및 ○○○뉴스 기고글에는 인권위와 인권위 지도부에 대한 비판 내용이 기재되어 있는데, 특히 별지 기재 중 “뜻있는 이들의 항변에 권력은 침묵으로 일관합니다”(원고 1 △△신문 기고글), “인권위 몰락사의 주인공은 소외 3 위원장입니다. 현 위원장의 독립성 이론은 인권현안에 대한 회피, 인권시민단체와의 결별, 인권위 직원과의 소통 단절 등으로 구성된 게 아닐까 합니다”(원고 1 ○○○뉴스 기고글), “인권위 비전은 이제 쓰레기통에 처박아야 합니다. 이제 그 뻔뻔한 입으로는 인권을 말할 자격이 없습니다”(원고 2 기고글), “독선과 불통으로 인권위가 죽어갑니다”(원고 3 피켓 문구), “눈치도 열심히 살핀다. 거울에 비친 몰골 흉측하기만 하다”(원고 4 기고글), “인권위는 안팎으로부터 ‘도둑이 들어도 짖지 않는 개는 필요 없다’는 질타를 받기에 이르렀습니다”(원고 5 기고글), “인권은 버리고 행정만”(원고 6 피켓 문구), “가장 민주적이어야 할 조직이 가장 추잡스런 공간으로 변질”(원고 7 기고글), “인권위가 졸지에 조졸과 비판을 받는 처리로 전락”(원고 8 기고글), “전임 위원장이 이미 만들어놓은 성과를 자신의 치적으로 삼거나, 위원회의 독단적 운영에 항의해 사퇴한 두 명의 상임위원 재직 중에 의결된 여러 결정을 마치 자신의 공으로 돌리는”(원고 9 기고글), “자신의 입장과 일치하지 않는 개인에 대한 박해, 더하고 뺄 것도 없이 현재 인권위에서 일어나는 일들의 축소”(원고 10 기고글), “가히 이름만 남은 인권기구라 할 만하다”(원고 11 기고글)는 등의 표현들은 어떠한 객관적인 근거에 의하여 사실을 표현한 것이 아니라 감정적으로 표현한 것으로 보이고, 인권을 보호해야 할 인권위가 반인권적 행위를 하였다는 취지의 내용이어서 인권위의 본래 설립 목적에 비추어 인권위에 대한 국민의 신뢰 등을 실추시킬 우려가 높다.

(2) It is difficult to see that the act in this case is primarily intended to withdraw the rejection of the extension of the contract period against Nonparty 1, and even if the Human Rights Council did not extend the contract with Nonparty 1, it cannot be deemed legitimate to post an article that insults and criticizes the Human Rights Council’s instruction department on the ground of such fact, and to conduct a project on the diskettes. Moreover, it is difficult to view that the Human Rights Council’s refusal of the extension of contract with Nonparty 1 is procedural and content defects.

(3) In light of the above emotional expression, etc. highly likely to undermine the people’s trust in human rights, and the purpose of the instant act is difficult to deem that the purpose of the instant act is consistent with the public interest, it is reasonable to deem that the instant act exceeded the scope of freedom of expression.

(4) The instant act was widely known that there was a serious conflict between the guidance division and employees within the Human Rights Commission, as it was intended for the employees of the Human Rights Commission and an unspecified number of citizens.

3) Determination of disciplinary action

In full view of the following facts, i.e., (1) it is difficult to readily conclude that the public’s trust in human rights was reduced due to the act of this case, and the degree of such act is less than any other misconduct, such as acceptance of money and valuables, sexual violence, etc. (2) it cannot be deemed that the first person who planned to engage in the act of the preceding person’s act does not necessarily violate the principle of equity because disciplinary action against the person who first engaged in the act of the preceding person’s act was somewhat excessive compared to other people. In light of the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the first person’s act of the preceding person’s act of the first person’s act was contrary to the principle of equity. Considering the fact that Plaintiff 1’s act of the first person’s act of the first person’s act of the first person’s act of the following person’s act of the first person’s act of the following person’s act of the first person’s act of the Plaintiff’s act of the second person’s act of the first person’s act of the second person’s act of the second person’s act of the second person’s news.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges anti-Japanese Co., Ltd. (Presiding Justice)