Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 98두12017 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/5592 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 98두12017

Revocation of Dismissal Disposition해임처분취소

Decided1998. 11. 10. Court대법원Employer (government/disciplinary authority) won
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

In this case, a prison guard (교도관) was dismissed (해임처분) from public service after delivering prohibited items to an inmate and receiving money in return. The Supreme Court (대법원) upheld the dismissal, establishing the standard for reviewing the scope of discretion granted to disciplinary authorities in public official disciplinary actions.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA prison guard (교도관) was dismissed after delivering prohibited items to an inmate and accepting money in return.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled the dismissal lawful, finding it did not clearly and objectively lose reasonableness under social norms.
  • LessonDisciplinary action against public officials is unlawful only when the abuse of discretion is objectively evident, meaning severe misconduct can justify strict penalties such as dismissal.
Issues
  • The standard for determining whether a disciplinary authority abused its discretion in imposing disciplinary action against a public official
  • Whether dismissal (해임처분) was a lawful disciplinary measure against a prison guard for accepting money and delivering prohibited items to an inmate
Key reasoning

The Supreme Court held that disciplinary action against a public official generally falls within the discretionary authority of the disciplinary authority. However, such action becomes unlawful only when it is objectively and clearly unreasonable to the extent that it constitutes an abuse of discretion under prevailing social norms. In determining whether such abuse occurred, courts must comprehensively consider the content and nature of the misconduct, the administrative purpose of the disciplinary system, and the applicable disciplinary sentencing guidelines. Applying this standard, the Court found that the dismissal of the prison guard—who had smuggled prohibited items to an inmate and accepted money for doing so—did not constitute an abuse of discretion, given the seriousness of the misconduct in the context of prison administration.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] When there is a ground for disciplinary action against a public official subject to discipline, the determination of what kind of disciplinary action to impose is left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority; however, a disciplinary action taken by the disciplinary authority in the exercise of such discretion may be held unlawful only where it is recognized that the action has clearly lost reasonableness in light of social norms, thereby constituting an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority. In order to find that a disciplinary action against a public official has clearly lost reasonableness in light of social norms, it must be a case where, upon comprehensive consideration of various factors according to the specific case—including the content and nature of the misconduct that gave rise to the discipline, the administrative purpose sought to be achieved through the discipline, and the standards for determining the degree of discipline—the content of the discipline can be objectively and clearly recognized as unjust.

[2] A case holding that a dismissal disposition against a correctional officer who delivered daily necessities, etc., whose introduction into the prison was prohibited, to an inmate, and who received money, valuables, and entertainment from the inmate's family members, etc., was lawful.

Full text (English, AI translation) 3,842 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellee] Defendant
[Judgment Below] Busan High Court Decision 97Gu16008 rendered on June 18, 1998

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal are borne by the Plaintiff.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where a public official subject to disciplinary action has committed a disciplinary offense and a disciplinary measure is to be taken, what kind of disciplinary measure to impose is left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority. However, only where it is recognized that the disciplinary measure taken by the disciplinary authority in the exercise of such discretion has clearly lost reasonableness in light of common social norms, thereby constituting an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority, may such measure be deemed unlawful. In order for a disciplinary measure against a public official to be found to have clearly lost reasonableness under common social norms, it must be a case where, upon comprehensive consideration of various factors—such as, according to the specific circumstances of the case, the content and nature of the misconduct that gave rise to the disciplinary action, the administrative purpose sought to be achieved through the disciplinary measure, and the standards for determining the severity of discipline—the content of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and clearly recognized as unjust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14637 rendered on November 25, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the lower court found, based on the evidence presented, the following facts: the Plaintiff was appointed as a correctional public official on October 30, 1989, and while serving as a correctional officer (sergeant) attached to the Security Division of a correctional institution, the Plaintiff, at the request of an inmate, made phone calls to the inmate's brother and friend using phone numbers provided by the inmate, and thereby received entertainment worth KRW 700,000 as well as cash of KRW 500,000. In addition, the Plaintiff received four pairs of sneakers, ten toothbrushes, and other items whose introduction into the facility was prohibited, kept these items in the Plaintiff's own locker in the sleeping quarters of the Security Division, and delivered them to the aforementioned inmate during night duty.

Having found these facts, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff's misconduct constituted a violation of the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act (국가공무원법) and the duty of integrity under Article 61 of the same Act, and that the Defendant's disposition in this case—ultimately imposing a dismissal—did not, in light of the purpose and function of correctional administration and the importance of the duty rules, and even taking into account the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff's working environment and length of service, amount to disciplinary content that is objectively and clearly unjust or that has clearly lost reasonableness under common social norms.

Upon examination of the record, this fact-finding and determination by the lower court are justified, and there is no illegality therein arising from a violation of the rules of evidence resulting in a mistake of fact, nor any illegality arising from a misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the scope of discretion in disciplinary measures, as argued in the grounds of appeal. The argument is 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 Justices.

Justice Lee Im-su (Presiding Justice), Park Jun-seo (Justice in charge), Lee Don-hui, Seo Seong

【판결요지】

[1] 공무원인 피징계자에게 징계사유가 있어서 징계처분을 하는 경우 어떠한 처분을 할 것인가는 징계권자의 재량에 맡겨진 것이고, 다만 징계권자가 재량권의 행사로서 한 징계처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 징계권자에게 맡겨진 재량권을 남용한 것이라고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 그 처분을 위법하다고 할 수 있고, 공무원에 대한 징계처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃었다고 하려면 구체적인 사례에 따라 징계의 원인이 된 비위사실의 내용과 성질, 징계에 의하여 달성하려고 하는 행정목적, 징계양정의 기준 등 여러 요소를 종합하여 판단할 때에 그 징계 내용이 객관적으로 명백히 부당하다고 인정할 수 있는 경우라야 한다.

[2] 교도소 수용자에게 반입이 금지된 일용품 등을 전달하여 주고 그 가족 등으로부터 금품 및 향응을 제공받은 교도관에 대한 해임처분이 적법하다고 본 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 국가공무원법 제78조 제1항

[2] 국가공무원법 제56조, 제61조 제1항, 제78조 제1항, 제79조, 행형법 제7조

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1997. 11. 25. 선고 97누14637 판결(공1998상, 123), 대법원 1997. 11. 28. 선고 97누8755 판결(공1998상, 135), 대법원 1998. 10. 9. 선고 97누1188 판결(공1998하, 2697)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,250자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】 원고

【피고, 피상고인】 피고

【원심판결】 부산고법 1998. 6. 18. 선고 97구16008 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.

상고비용은 원고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 본다.

공무원인 피징계자에게 징계사유가 있어서 징계처분을 하는 경우 어떠한 처분을 할 것인가는 징계권자의 재량에 맡겨진 것이고, 다만 징계권자가 재량권의 행사로서 한 징계처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 징계권자에게 맡겨진 재량권을 남용한 것이라고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 그 처분을 위법하다고 할 수 있고, 공무원에 대한 징계처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃었다고 하려면 구체적인 사례에 따라 징계의 원인이 된 비위사실의 내용과 성질, 징계에 의하여 달성하려고 하는 행정목적, 징계양정의 기준 등 여러 요소를 종합하여 판단할 때에 그 징계 내용이 객관적으로 명백히 부당하다고 인정할 수 있는 경우라야 한다(대법원 1997. 11. 25. 선고 97누14637 판결 등 참조).

원심판결의 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여, 원고는 1989. 10. 30. 교정직 공무원으로 임용되어 교도소 보안과 소속 교도관(교사)으로 근무하던 중 수용자로부터 부탁을 받고 그 수용자가 알려주는 전화번호로 동인의 형 및 친구에게 전화하여 금 700,000원 상당의 향응 및 현금 500,000원을 제공받았을 뿐만 아니라 차입이 금지되어 있는 운동화 4켤레, 칫솔 10개 등을 교부받아 위 물품들을 교도소 보안과 침실의 원고의 사물함에 보관하고 있다가 야간근무시 위 수용자에게 전달한 사실을 인정한 다음, 원고의 이러한 비위가 국가공무원법 제56조 소정의 성실의무 및 같은 법 제61조 소정의 청렴의무를 위반한 것으로서 그에 대하여 최종적으로 해임처분을 한 피고의 이 사건 처분은, 교도행정의 목적·기능 및 근무수칙의 중요도 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고의 직무환경과 근무기간 등 원고가 주장하는 사정을 감안하더라도 그 징계 내용이 객관적으로 명백히 부당한 것으로서 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃었다고 할 수 없다고 판단하였는바, 기록에 의하면, 원심의 이러한 사실인정 및 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 소론과 같은 채증법칙 위배로 인한 사실오인의 위법이나 징계처분에 있어서 재량권의 범위에 관한 법리오인의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다. 논지는 이유 없다.

그러므로 상고를 기각하고 상고비용은 패소자의 부담으로 하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이임수(재판장) 박준서(주심) 이돈희 서성

Related statutes

국가공무원법 제56조국가공무원법 제61조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
83누109 · 대법원 1983-09-27
Revocation of Dismissal from Office
#2
95누18727 · 대법원 1996-04-26
Revocation of Dismissal (해임처분취소)
#3
85구65 · 대구고법 1985-08-09
해임처분취소청구사건
#4
90누8954 · 대법원 1991-07-23
Cancellation of Dismissal Disposition (해임처분취소)
#5
87누366 · 대법원 1988-03-22
Revocation of Dismissal from Office

Cases citing this decision

2004두10852 · 대법원 2005-04-29
Revocation of Dismissal (해임처분취소)
2002두11813 · 대법원 2004-11-12
Revocation of Dismissal from Office
2002두6620 · 대법원 2002-09-24
Revocation of Disciplinary Dismissal (해임처분취소)
2000다60890, 60906 · 대법원 2002-08-23
명예희망퇴직금·부당이득금
98두8858 · 대법원 2000-10-13
Revocation of Dismissal Disposition

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)