[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Minister of Education, Litigation Representative Attorney Jeong Bo-seong
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court, Judgment of April 3, 1991, Case No. 90Gu4251
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal submitted by the Plaintiff's litigation representative are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, having comprehensively considered the evidence it adopted, found as follows:
The Plaintiff had previously been singled out and rejected by students as a "collaborationist professor" (professor loyal to those in power), and from December 2, 1988 to June 30, 1989, students staged demonstrations and sit-ins demanding the Plaintiff's resignation almost every day. Although the Plaintiff should have, with the advice and cooperation of the school authorities and fellow professors in the same department, resolved the students' suspicions and persuaded them through sincere dialogue, the Plaintiff instead operated under the perception that the students' aforementioned conduct had been instigated behind the scenes by Dean Kang Seong-gu and some other professors manipulating a number of radical students. Acting on this perception, the Plaintiff sent a certified letter to the said Dean Kang demanding an explanation, thereby placing the blame on the Dean, certain professors, and students while adopting a haughty attitude claiming that the Plaintiff himself was entirely without fault. This deepened the students' distrust and caused the situation to escalate into questions about the Plaintiff's moral and personal character, and moreover obstructed the guidance activities of the school and its professors toward the students. In addition, the Plaintiff produced and distributed leaflets on campus, and prepared and distributed leaflets both on campus and throughout Yeosu City containing his own speculation, misperceptions, and unconfirmed matters concerning the honor of certain professors (including the matter of a request for expenses for a Jirisan mountain hike), thereby expanding the internal school matter to the outside. Furthermore, the Plaintiff caused about ten members of the general public unrelated to the school to form a "Committee for the Promotion of Normalization of the Academy," and had them prepare and submit to the Blue House a petition containing the aforementioned speculative and unconfirmed facts along with content defending and justifying the Plaintiff's position. Through such conduct, the Plaintiff provoked the demonstrating students, further worsening the situation and making its resolution more difficult.
The court below found these facts and determined that they constituted a breach of the Plaintiff's duty of good faith and duty to maintain dignity as a public official. Upon examination of the record, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justified, and it cannot be said that there was any illegality therein due to incomplete deliberation or a violation of the rules of evidence resulting in a mistaken finding of fact. This ground of appeal is without merit.
2. The fact that Yeosu National Fisheries University enacted the General Disciplinary Committee Regulations on June 23, 1989, formed a General Disciplinary Committee, and thereafter requested the said General Disciplinary Committee to deliberate on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff is recognized by the descriptions in Exhibits A No. 1-1, 2, 3, A No. 2-1, 2, A No. 3-1, 2, and A No. 4, which were adopted by the court below, together with the testimony of witness Kim Hong-seok before the court below. Furthermore, according to the record, it cannot be found that the General Disciplinary Committee of the said university was established and organized in violation of Article 50 of the Public Educational Officials Act (교육공무원법) and Articles 3 and 4 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action for Public Educational Officials (교육공무원징계령). Therefore, the argument that the General Disciplinary Committee which resolved on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff in this case was not established as a standing body within the said university at the time, and that the resolution thereby had a procedural defect rendering it unlawful, is also without merit.
3. In order for a disciplinary measure against a public official to be found unlawful on the ground that it exceeds the bounds of discretion due to being excessively severe, it must be a case where the content of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and clearly recognized as unreasonable, in light of the content and nature of the misconduct that formed the grounds for discipline and the administrative purpose sought to be achieved by the discipline (see this Court's Judgment of March 22, 1988, Case No. 87Nu366). Moreover, even where some of several grounds for discipline are not recognized, if the other recognized grounds for discipline alone are sufficient to justify the validity of the disciplinary measure in question, it cannot be said to be unlawful to uphold the disciplinary measure (see this Court's Judgment of December 26, 1989, Case No. 89Nu589).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that, among the grounds for discipline against the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendant, the ground alleging that the Plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 in academic research funds from Namhae Chemical Co., Ltd. under the name of the Fishing Village Economic and Cultural Research Institute but failed to conduct joint research was erroneous. However, the court below determined that the remaining grounds for discipline, as found in the judgment, alone were sufficient to establish that the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity under the State Public Officials Act (국가공무원법), thereby falling under the grounds for discipline set forth in Article 78, Paragraph 1, Items 2 and 3 of the same Act. The court below further determined that, even taking into account the mitigating circumstances that the Plaintiff had diligently researched and worked to perform his assigned duties over nearly 20 years of teaching, having served twice as department head during his tenure at the said university and having received a commendation of merit from the Dean, it could not be said that the Defendant's disciplinary dismissal of the Plaintiff in this case constituted an abuse of the disciplinary authority.
In light of the content and nature of the Plaintiff's misconduct, the purpose of the discipline, and the legal principles set forth above, the above determination by the court below is justified, and since the content of the disciplinary measure cannot be found to be objectively and clearly unreasonable, it cannot be said that there was any illegality therein due to a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the scope of discretion in determining the appropriateness of disciplinary measures. This ground of appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party, the Justices participating in this decision being unanimous in their opinion, as set forth in the Order.
Supreme Court Justice Park Man-ho (Presiding Justice), Park Woo-dong, Kim Sang-won, Yoon Young-cheol