대법원 84누735 — Revocation of Dismissal Disposition (해임처분취소)

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

a. When there exist grounds for disciplinary action against a public official subject to discipline, the determination of what kind of disciplinary measure to impose is left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority; provided, however, that such disciplinary action shall be deemed unlawful only where it is found that, as an exercise of the said disciplinary authority, it is markedly unreasonable in light of common social norms and thus exceeds the bounds of that discretionary power.

b. Where the head of the Beacon Section of a Regional Maritime and Port Administration Office, who oversaw the installation, management, operation, maintenance, and repair of navigational aid facilities within its jurisdiction, arbitrarily approved construction of a light beacon at a location different from the original design drawings without obtaining the approval of the head of the competent office, even though such approval was required for any deviation from the original design; and who, moreover, finalized and processed a falsely prepared construction supervision log on his own authority; and who, as the completion inspector for the light beacon improvement works, in breach of his duties, falsely prepared the completion inspection report as if the beacon had been completed in accordance with the design drawings, even though it had in fact been completed differently from the design, thereby causing a loss to the national treasury of KRW 1,508,337, such conduct constitutes a marked neglect of his own duties and a violation of the duty of good faith, etc. under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act (국가공무원법); accordingly, even taking into account all relevant circumstances such as his length of service and meritorious record, the disciplinary dismissal imposed upon him cannot be deemed unlawful as exceeding the bounds of discretionary power.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below, upon consideration of the evidence it cited, found the following facts: that the Defendant (this appears to be a clerical error for "the President") issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on December 7, 1982; and that the grounds for the disciplinary action giving rise to the dismissal disposition were as follows. The Plaintiff, while serving as Head of the Aids-to-Navigation Division of the First Regional Maritime and Port Administration Office from November 1, 1980 to June 14, 1982, was the person generally responsible for the installation, management, operation, maintenance, and repair of navigation aid facilities within the jurisdiction. Between August 26, 1981 and October 23 of the same year, when the non-party Hangchi Development Co., Ltd. carried out the improvement construction of Beacon No. 8, etc. in the Tongyeong Canal, although the existing beacon should have been completely removed pursuant to the construction design and specifications and a new beacon installed at the same location, (1) during the foundation work process of said construction, upon receiving an oral report from a subordinate employee, Cho Yeong-pil, the construction supervisor, that it would be better to change the location of the new beacon by 2-3 meters toward the land from the location of the existing beacon, the Plaintiff arbitrarily approved the change of construction orally without following the prescribed procedures for design changes; (2) knowing that 28 cubic meters out of 45 cubic meters of the body of the old beacon had not been removed, the Plaintiff connived at this and, without further review, finally approved on his own authority the construction supervision log falsely prepared by the said Cho Yeong-pil containing that content; and (3) having been appointed as the completion inspector for said construction on October 23, 1981, when conducting the completion inspection on October 26 of the same year, the Plaintiff falsely prepared the completion inspection report as if the construction had been completed in accordance with the design drawings and specifications, and reported to the Head of the First Regional Maritime and Port Administration Office, who was under the Defendant and unaware of this fact, that the construction had been properly carried out, thereby obtaining approval and having the entire construction cost paid, thus causing a loss to the national treasury amounting to KRW 1,508,337, equivalent to the cost of removing the remaining body of the old beacon that was not removed.

Having established these facts, the court below found as follows: that the degree of the construction deviation from the design was relatively minor; that, moreover, after the new beacon collapsed due to a vessel accident, it was reconstructed and completed by the original contractor, so that there was, as a result, no significant financial loss to the State; that the Plaintiff did not commit this misconduct in expectation of receiving, or having received, a bribe from a subordinate employee or the construction contractor, but that it arose from a momentary error in judgment; that the Plaintiff had served faithfully without committing any misconduct for approximately 15 years since starting to work as a conditional aids-to-navigation probationary official (기원보) at the Defendant's agency on April 1, 1967, and had even received a commendation from the Defendant; and that the said Cho Yeong-pil, who was primarily responsible for this beacon improvement construction, had originally been the Plaintiff's superior, but at the time of this construction, the Plaintiff had instead become the superior in the position of directing and supervising Cho Yeong-pil. Based on these findings, the court below held that even though the Plaintiff had committed the wrongdoing set out above in the grounds for disciplinary action, considering all the circumstances—including the fact that the degree of deviation of the construction from the design was minor, that there was, as a result, no loss to the national treasury, the motive that led to the misconduct, and the fact that the Plaintiff had received a commendation as an outstanding public official—the choice of the dismissal disposition, which deprives the Plaintiff of his status as a public official, as a disciplinary measure for the Plaintiff's above misconduct, constituted an abuse of the disciplinary authority and was therefore unlawful.

2. However, a disciplinary action against a public official is a sanction imposed, where the public official concerned has violated official duties or committed other misconduct, in order to maintain order in the public official relationship, to enforce discipline, and to ensure that the public official fulfills his duties. Accordingly, where there exist grounds for disciplinary action against the public official subject to discipline, the determination of what type of disposition to impose is entrusted to the discretion of the disciplinary authority; only where the disciplinary disposition, as an exercise of such disciplinary authority, is found to have manifestly lost reasonableness according to common social norms and thus to have exceeded the bounds of that discretionary authority, can such disposition be deemed unlawful (see this Court's Decisions 83Nu130, rendered June 28, 1983, and 82Nu346, rendered November 8, 1983).

According to the record, a "beacon" (등표) is "one of the navigation aid facilities installed to prevent maritime accidents in which a navigating vessel departs from its course and comes into contact with land." The Tongyeong Canal route in this case is a narrow channel with heavy maritime traffic, an area where maritime accidents frequently occur. Beacon No. 8 had been damaged and was shaking due to a vessel collision, and this construction was undertaken to improve it. In this case, the design specified that the location of the improved beacon be set at the location of the existing damaged beacon, that is, at its original location, for the following reasons: first, installing the beacon perpendicular to the centerline of the route, on either side, enables accurate confirmation of the width of the route, thereby ensuring the safe navigation of vessels; second, since the beacon had been installed at its original location for 50 years, this was a location widely known and familiar for navigation to captains and crew traveling through these waters; third, installing it on ground that had borne the weight of the structure (beacon) for 50 years eliminated concerns about subsidence; fourth, it was economical; and fifth, it avoided the administrative inconvenience of having to newly conduct surveying work for the route, among other reasons. It can also be recognized that, in order to construct such an important facility at a location different from the original design, approval from the head of the competent agency, among others, was required.

Under these circumstances, if the Plaintiff, as found by the court below, being the person generally responsible, as Head of the Aids-to-Navigation Division of the First Regional Maritime and Port Administration Office, for the installation, management, operation, maintenance, and repair of navigation aid facilities within the jurisdiction, arbitrarily approved construction different from the design drawings, finally approved on his own authority a falsely prepared construction supervision log, and moreover, as the completion inspector for this beacon improvement construction, in breach of his duties, falsely prepared the completion inspection report as if the beacon had been completed in accordance with the design drawings when in fact it had been completed differently from the design drawings, thereby causing a loss to the national treasury of KRW 1,508,337, this constitutes a marked neglect of his own duties and a violation of the duty of good faith, among others, prescribed in Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act (국가공무원법). Furthermore, according to the record, it can be recognized that the new beacon, which was reconstructed based on the Plaintiff's false completion inspection in breach of his duties as described above, was later found to be tilted by as much as 4 degrees even to the naked eye, revealing that the construction had been defective (although it later collapsed due to a vessel collision), and that the construction company subsequently reconstructed and completed it pursuant to the defect warranty provision in the construction contract. This shows that the Plaintiff's breach of duty resulted, as a matter of fact, in significant consequences. Accordingly, even taking into account, as found by the court below, the fact that this improved beacon collapsed due to a vessel collision and was subsequently reconstructed and completed by the original contractor, the motive that led to this misconduct, and the various circumstances set forth by the court below regarding the Plaintiff's service record and merits, it cannot be said that this disposition has manifestly lost reasonableness according to common social norms, and there are no other circumstances that would warrant such a finding. Therefore, it cannot be said that this disposition exceeded the bounds of, or constituted an abuse of, the disciplinary authority's discretion.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination—that this disciplinary disposition was unlawful as exceeding the bounds of discretionary authority, based solely on the reasons stated in the judgment below—constitutes an error in the legal principles concerning the scope of discretionary authority in disciplinary dispositions, or an unlawful failure to fully examine the case. Therefore, the ground of appeal is well-founded. Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which rendered the judgment below, the opinions of the Justices involved being unanimous, and it is so ordered as set forth in the Order.

Justice Jeong Tae-gyun (Presiding Justice), Lee Jeong-woo, Shin Jeong-cheol, Kim Hyeong-gi
[Note: Justice Lee Jeong-woo is unable to sign and seal due to being on overseas travel.] Presiding Justice, Justice Jeong Tae-gyun

【판결요지】

가. 공무원인 피징계자에게 징계사유가 있어 징계처분을 함에 있어 어떠한 종류의 처분을 할 것인가는 징계권자의 재량에 맡겨진 것이고 다만, 징계처분이 위 징계권의 행사로서 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 그 재량권의 범위를 일탈한 것이라고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 그 처분을 위법한 것이라 할 것이다.

나. 관내 항로표지시설의 설치, 관리, 운영, 유지 및 보수를 총괄하는 지방해운항만청 표지과장이 등표의 공사를 원설계도와 다른 위치에 하려면 소속청장의 결재를 받아야 함에도 설계도와 다른 시공을 하도록 임의로 승인하였고, 또 허위로 작성된 공사감독일지를 전결처리하였으며 등표개량공사의 준공검사관으로 그 임무에 위배하여 설계도와 다르게 위 등표가 완공되었음에도 설계도와 동일하게 된 것처럼 준공검사조서를 허위작성함으로써 금 1,508,337원의 국고손실을 입혔다면 이는 자신의 업무를 현저히 소홀히 한 것으로 국가공무원법 제56조 소정의 성실의무등을 위반하였다 할 것이어서 이에 대한 해임처분은 동인의 근무경력 및 공적등 제반사유를 감안한다 하더라도 재량권의 범위를 넘어 위법한 것이라고 할 수 없다.

【참조조문】

국가공무원법 제78조, 제79조, 제56조

【참조판례】

대법원 1983.6.28. 선고 83누130 판결, 1983.11.8. 선고 82누346 판결

【주문】·【이유】 전문 3,426자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】

【피고, 상고인】 해운항만청장

【원심판결】 서울고등법원 1984.11.20. 선고 83구292 판결

【주 문】

원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 판단한다.

1. 원심은 그 거시증거를 종합하여 피고(이는 대통령의 착오로 보임)가 1982.12.7자로 원고에 대하여 해임처분을 한 사실과 위 해임처분을 하게된 징계사유가 원고는 1980.11.1부터 1982.6.14까지 제1지방해운항만청 표지과장으로 재직하면서 관내항로 표지시설의 설치, 관리, 운영, 유지 및 보수를 총괄하던 자로서, 1981.8.26부터 같은해 10.23사이에 소외 항치개발주식회사가 충무운하 제8호 등표 개량공사를 집행함에 있어서 위 공사설계서 및 시방서에 의거 기존등표를 완전히 제거한 후, 같은 위치에 새로운 등표를 설치하여야 함에도 (1) 위 공사 기초작업과정에서 공사감독관인 부하직원 조영필로부터 새로운 등표의 위치를 기존등표의 위치에서 육지쪽으로 2-3m 변경시공하는 것이 좋겠다는 구두보고를 받고는 설계변경을 위한 소정절차를 결한 채 구두로 변경시공토록 임의 승인하였고, (2)구등표의 표체 45입방미터 중 28입방미터를 제거하지 아니한 사실을 알고서도 이를 묵인한 채, 위 조영필이 그 내용을 허위로 작성한 공사감독일지를 전결처리하였으며, (3) 1981.10.23 위 공사의 준공검사관으로 임명되어 같은해 10.26 준공검사를 함에 있어서 위 공사가 설계도의 시방서와 같이 준공된 것처럼 준공검사조서를 허위작성하여 그 점을 모르는 피고 산하 제1지방해운항만청장에게 정당하게 시공된 양 보고, 결재를 받아 공사비 전액을 지급하므로서 구등표잔존표체철거 비용상당인 금 1,508,337원 상당의 국고손실을 입혔다는 사실을 확정한 다음, 위 설계변경 시공정도가 비교적 경미하였을 뿐만 아니라 신등표가 선박사고로 도괴된 후 원시공자에 의하여 재시공 완공되므로서 결과적으로 국가에 큰 재정적 손해가 없었던 사실과 원고가 부하직원이나 공사업자로부터 뇌물을 수수하거나 수수할 것을 기대하고 이 사건 비위를 저지른 것이 아니라 순간적인 판단착오에 의하여 비롯된 사실 및 원고는 1967.4.1 피고기관에서 조건부 항로표지 기원보로 근무한 이래 약 15년간 전혀 비위를 저지른적이 없이 성실히 근무하므로서 피고로부터 표창까지 받은 사실과 이 사건 등표개량공사의 1차 책임자인 위 조영필은 원래는 원고의 상관이었으나 이 사건 공사당시는 오히려 원고가 상관이 되어 위 조영필을 지휘.감독하는 자리에 있게 되었던 사실 등을 각 인정할 수 있다고 하여, 이 사건의 경우 원고에게 비록 앞서본 징계사유에서 본 잘못이 있다하여도 설계와 다른 공사정도가 경미하고 결과적으로 국고에 손실이 없는 점등과 그 비행에 이르게된 동기 및 그동안 우수공무원으로 표창까지 받은 점 등의 제반정상을 참작하면 원고의 위 비행에 대한 징계로서 공무원의 직을 박탈하는 해임처분을 택한 것은 징계권을 남용한 위법한 것이라고 판시하고 있다.

2. 그러나 공무원에 대한 징계처분은 당해 공무원의 직무상의 의무위반 기타 비행이 있는 경우 공무원관계의 질서를 유지하고 기강을 숙정하여 공무원으로서의 의무를 다하도록 하기 위하여 과하는 제재이므로 공무원인 피징계자에게 징계사유가 있어 징계처분을 함에 있어 어떠한 종류의 처분을 할 것인가는 징계권자의 재량에 맡겨진 것이고 다만 징계처분이 위 징계권의 행사로서 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 그 재량권의 범위를 일탈한 것이라고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 그 처분을 위법한 것이라 할 것인바( 당원 1983.6.28. 선고 83누130 판결, 1983.11.8. 선고 82누346 판결 참조) 기록에 의하면 등표란“항해하는 선박이 항로를 이탈하여 육지에 접촉하는 해상사고를 방지하기 위해 설치된 항로표지시설의 하나”로, 이건 충무운하 항로는 협수로이고 해상교통량도 많아 해난사고가 많이 일어나는 지역인 바, 위 제8호 등표도 선박의 충돌로 손상되어 흔들렸기 때문에 이를 개량하기 위하여 이건 공사를 하게된 것이며, 이 사건의 경우 개량등표의 위치를 손상된 위 기존등표가 있던 곳에 즉 원위치에 정하도록 설계된 것은 첫째, 항로중심선과 직각방향으로 좌우에 등표를 설치하므로서 항로의 폭 확인등이 정확하여 선박의 안전운항을 기할 수 있고 둘째, 기존 원위치에 등표가 설치된지도 50년이 되므로 이 수역을 통행하는 선장이나 선원에게 널리 알려져 조선에 익숙한 위치이고 셋째, 50년이나 구조물(등표)의 중량을 받아온 지반상에 설치하면 침하에 대한 염려가 없고 넷째, 경제적이며 다섯째, 새로이 선로공사를 해야하는 등의 행정적 번거로움이 없기 때문인 것으로 보여지고, 이같이 중요한 시설의 공사를 원설계도와 다른 위치에 축조하려면 소속청장의 결재등을 받아야 하는 사실을 인정할 수 있는 바, 이 같은 사정아래서 원판시와 같이 원고가 제1지방해운항만청 표지과장으로 관내 항로표지시설의 설치, 관리, 운영, 유지 및 보수를 총괄하던자로서 설계도와 다른 시공을 하도록 임의로 승인하였고, 또 허위로 작성된 공사감독일지를 전결처리하였으며, 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 등표개량공사의 준공검사관으로 그 임무에 위배하여 설계도와 다르게 위 등표가 완공되었음에도 설계도와 동일하게 된 것처럼 준공검사조서를 허위작성하므로서 금 1,508,337원의 국고손실을 입혔다면 이는 자신의 업무를 현저히 소홀히 한 것으로 국가공무원법 제56조 소정의 성실 의무등을 위반하였다 할 것이고, 또 한편 기록에 의하면 원고가 위와 같이 그 임무에 위배한 허위준공검사로 개량신축된 이건 신등표는 그후 육안으로 보아도 4도나 기울어져 있어 잘못된 공사임이 판명되어(물론 선박충돌로 도괴는 되었지만) 그 후 시공회사가 도급계약시의 하자보수약정에 따라 재시공하여 완공한 사실을 인정할 수 있어 원고의 위 임무위배행위가 결과적으로 큰 결과를 초래한 사실을 엿볼 수 있으니 원심판시와 같이 이 사건 개량등표가 선박의 충돌로 도괴된 후 원시공자에 의하여 재시공 완공되었다는 사실이나 이건 비행에 이르게 된 동기와 원심설시의 원고의 근무경력 및 공적등 제사유를 감안한다 하더라도 이건 처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃은 것이라고 할 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 사정이 없으니 이건 처분이 그 재량권의 범위를 넘어 이를 남용한 것이라고 할 수는 없을 것이다.

그러함에도 원판시 이유만으로 이건 징계처분이 재량권의 범위를 일탈한 위법한 것이라고 한 원심의 판단은 징계처분의 재량권의 범위에 관한 법리를 오해하였거나 심리미진의 위법을 범한 것이라 할 것이므로 논지는 이유있다. 그러므로 원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 원심인 서울고등법원으로 환송하기로 관여법관의 의견이 일치되어 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 정태균(재판장) 이정우 신정철 김형기 대법원판사 이정우는해외출장이므로서명날인불능임.재판장대법원판사 정태균

Revocation of Dismissal Disposition (해임처분취소)해임처분취소

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[Plaintiff, Appellee]

[Order]

[Reasoning]

【판결요지】

【참조조문】

【참조판례】

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases citing this decision

Related tools & guides