[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds for appeal are examined.
1. According to the judgment of the court below, the court below, comprehensively considering the evidence set forth therein, found the fact that, as stated in the notification from the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office (대검찰청), the Plaintiff, in connection with the purchase of agricultural materials, which was the Plaintiff's assigned duty, received an improper solicitation from a certain person, the executive director of the Korea Plastic Cooperative (한국프라스틱협동조합), asking the Plaintiff to ensure that the purchase contracts for products of the members of said cooperative, such as polyethylene film and polyethylene bags, would be successfully concluded, and that the Plaintiff received a total of 150,000 won on three occasions in connection therewith. No violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal can be found in the court below's process of finding these facts, and the court below's determination that the Defendant's disciplinary dismissal of the Plaintiff, who committed such misconduct, cannot be found to exceed the Defendant's discretionary authority is also acceptable. Therefore, the argument that the court below found the facts in violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstood the legal principles concerning abuse of the power of disciplinary action is without merit.
2. The court below found, based on the evidence set forth therein, that under the Defendant's personnel regulations and disciplinary business handling guidelines, where there are grounds for disciplinary action against an employee, such action shall be implemented following a resolution of the relevant personnel committee and approval by the chairman, and that where the disciplinary measure proposed by the person authorized to refer the matter for disciplinary action corresponds to disciplinary dismissal, or in the case of a reexamination concerning a severe disciplinary action, a notice of appearance must be issued (Article 29, Paragraph 3 of the Disciplinary Business Handling Guidelines); that in imposing disciplinary dismissal, which is a severe disciplinary action, on the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to issue a notice of appearance to the Plaintiff and thereby failed to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to explain, which constitutes a serious and clear procedural defect; however, the court below also found the fact that the Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the said disciplinary dismissal, requested a reexamination in accordance with the provisions of the said personnel regulations, and that in the deliberation thereof by the Senior Personnel Committee, a notice of appearance was issued to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appeared before the said Senior Personnel Committee accordingly and fully presented his explanations. The court below held that the said reexamination procedure and the aforementioned disciplinary procedure together constitute a single disciplinary dismissal procedure against the Plaintiff as a whole, and thus concluded that the Defendant's disciplinary procedure against the Plaintiff was lawful. No violation of the rules of evidence can be found in the court below's process of finding these facts, and it does not appear that the court below erred in interpreting the Defendant's personnel regulations or disciplinary business handling guidelines. Therefore, this argument is also without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating judges.
Supreme Court Justice Lee Hoi-chang (Presiding Judge), Lee Il-gyu, Lee Seong-ryeol, Jeon Sang-seok