Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Application of the Administrative Procedures Act to the Dismissal Ex Officio of a Special Service Civil Servant and the Illegality of Omitting Prior Notice and an Opportunity to Submit Opinions
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Jan. 16, 2013, 2011Du30687 (judgment)
Case name: 직권면직처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a dismissal ex officio of a special service civil servant be carried out without undergoing the prior notice and opinion submission procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act, on the ground that it is a disposition made under personnel-related statutes governing public officials?
Holding
Even where a disposition is made under personnel-related statutes governing public officials, the application of the Administrative Procedures Act is excluded only for dispositions whose nature makes it difficult or unnecessary to undergo administrative procedure, or for dispositions for which a procedure equivalent to administrative procedure is prescribed, and this legal principle also applies to the dismissal ex officio of a special service civil servant. The Supreme Court found tenable the court below's holding that the disposition dismissing the Director of the Presidential Archives ex officio without prior notice and an opportunity to submit opinions was unlawful, and dismissed the final appeal.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
성질상 행정절차를 거치기 곤란하거나 불필요하다고 인정되는 처분이나 행정절차에 준하는 절차를 거치도록 하고 있는 처분의 경우에만 행정절차법의 적용이 배제되는 것으로 보아야 하고
Unofficial English translation
It must be regarded that the application of the Administrative Procedures Act is excluded only in the case of a disposition which, in view of its nature, is deemed difficult or unnecessary to undergo administrative procedures, or a disposition for which procedures equivalent to administrative procedures are required to be undergone, and
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
공무원 인사관계 법령에 의한 처분에 관한 사항이라 하더라도 전부에 대하여 행정절차법의 적용이 배제되는 것이 아니라
Unofficial English translation
Even in the case of a matter concerning a disposition under statutes and regulations governing personnel affairs of public officials, the application of the Administrative Procedures Act is not excluded in its entirety, but
Factors
- 당해 처분의 성질상 의견청취가 현저히 곤란하거나 명백히 불필요하다고 인정될 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우
- 성질상 행정절차를 거치기 곤란하거나 불필요하다고 인정되는 처분
- 행정절차에 준하는 절차를 거치도록 하고 있는 처분
- 별정직 공무원에 대한 직권면직 처분의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용된다
Unofficial English translation
• Where there is a reasonable ground for recognizing that a hearing of opinions is remarkably difficult or manifestly unnecessary in view of the nature of the relevant disposition
• A disposition which, in view of its nature, is deemed difficult or unnecessary to undergo administrative procedures
• A disposition for which procedures equivalent to administrative procedures are required to be undergone
• The same applies also to the case of the ex officio dismissal of a public official in a specially appointed position
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 9. 21. 선고 2006두20631 판결(공2007하, 1682)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Du20631 decided September 21, 2007 (Gong 2007 Ha, 1682)
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2007. 9. 21. 선고 2006두20631 판결(공2007하, 1682) / [1] 대법원 2000. 11. 14. 선고 99두5870 판결(공2001상, 56), 대법원 2004. 5. 28. 선고 2004두1254 판결(공2004하, 1088)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances, other than an opportunity to explain during the course of an investigation or a public dispute in the press, must exist for it to be recognized that a hearing is manifestly unnecessary in a dismissal ex officio?
We will re-check this reading if the exclusions under Article 3 (2) 9 of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are amended, or if a separate procedure for making statements is established for the dismissal of a special service civil servant.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
A comparison with an independent reading conducted by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, showed that 7 of the 8 axes matched, and that the readings diverged on the 8th axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What circumstances, other than an opportunity to explain during the course of an investigation or a public dispute in the press, must exist for it to be recognized that a hearing is manifestly unnecessary in a dismissal ex officio?” vs Independent “What procedural safeguards must a procedure under personnel-related statutes governing public officials possess in order to be recognized as a procedure equivalent to administrative procedure?”
The first reading asks about the circumstances that would render a hearing manifestly unnecessary, while the independent reading asks about the safeguards a procedure equivalent to administrative procedure must possess.
성질상 행정절차를 거치기 곤란하거나 불필요하다고 인정되는 처분이나 행정절차에 준하는 절차를 거치도록 하고 있는 처분의 경우에만 행정절차법의 적용이 배제되는 것으로 보아야 하고Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below viewed the disposition dismissing ex officio the plaintiff, who had been appointed Director of the Presidential Archives as a special service civil servant with a five-year term, as a disposition restricting his rights and interests; it also held that no procedure equivalent to administrative procedure existed, since the provisions of the former Public Officials Discipline Decree concerning disciplinary procedures do not apply to the dismissal ex officio of a special service civil servant, and that this was not a disposition whose nature made it difficult to undergo administrative procedure. Relying only on the circumstances that an opportunity to explain had been given during the course of the investigation and that a legal dispute had played out in the press, it held that this did not fall within the exception, and that the disposition failing to give prior notice and an opportunity to submit opinions was unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court viewed the court below's holding as proper, being grounded on the legal principle concerning the scope of the exclusion from the application of the Administrative Procedures Act and the reasons for the exception, and, finding no misunderstanding of a legal principle or failure to make findings, dismissed the defendant's final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the personnel-related statutes governing public officials prescribe a procedure equivalent to administrative procedure for the disposition, such as deliberation by a disciplinary committee
- Where the disposition is one whose nature makes it difficult or unnecessary to undergo administrative procedure
- Where the disposition imposes no obligation on the party concerned and does not restrict his rights and interests
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, check whether the personnel statutes applicable to the status of the public official in question provide a separate procedure for making statements, and whether a substantive opportunity to submit opinions existed before the disposition.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 행정청이 침해적 행정처분을 하면서 당사자에게 구 행정절차법에서 정한 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 않은 경우, 처분의 적법 여부(원칙적 소극) [2] 공무원 인사관계 법령에 의한 처분에 관한 사항에 대하여 행정절차법의 적용이 배제되는 범위 및 그 법리가 별정직 공무원에 대한 직권면직 처분에도 적용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where an administrative agency makes an infringing administrative disposition without giving the party prior notice under the former Administrative Procedures Act or an opportunity to submit opinions, the legality of the disposition (negative as a rule) [2] The extent to which the application of the Administrative Procedures Act is excluded with respect to matters concerning dispositions under statutes and regulations governing personnel affairs of public officials, and whether that legal principle applies also to the ex officio dismissal of a public official in a specially appointed position (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 행정절차법(2012. 10. 22. 법률 제11498호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제21조 제1항, 제4항, 제22조에 의하면, 행정청이 당사자에게 의무를 과하거나 권익을 제한하는 처분을 하는 경우에는 미리 처분하고자 하는 원인이 되는 사실과 처분의 내용 및 법적 근거, 이에 대하여 의견을 제출할 수 있다는 뜻과 의견을 제출하지 아니하는 경우의 처리방법 등의 사항을 당사자 등에게 통지해야 하고, 다른 법령 등에서 필수적으로 청문을 실시하거나 공청회를 개최하도록 규정하고 있지 아니한 경우에도 당사자 등에게 의견제출의 기회를 주어야 하되, ‘당해 처분의 성질상 의견청취가 현저히 곤란하거나 명백히 불필요하다고 인정될 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우’ 등에는 처분의 사전통지나 의견청취를 아니 할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 따라서 행정청이 침해적 행정처분을 하면서 당사자에게 위와 같은 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 않았다면, 사전통지를 하지 않거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 않아도 되는 예외적인 경우에 해당하지 않는 한, 그 처분은 위법하여 취소를 면할 수 없다. [2] 구 행정절차법(2012. 10. 22. 법률 제11498호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제2항 제9호, 구 행정절차법 시행령(2011. 12. 21. 대통령령 제23383호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제3호의 내용을 행정의 공정성, 투명성 및 신뢰성을 확보하고 국민의 권익을 보호함을 목적으로 하는 행정절차법의 입법 목적에 비추어 보면, 공무원 인사관계 법령에 의한 처분에 관한 사항이라 하더라도 전부에 대하여 행정절차법의 적용이 배제되는 것이 아니라, 성질상 행정절차를 거치기 곤란하거나 불필요하다고 인정되는 처분이나 행정절차에 준하는 절차를 거치도록 하고 있는 처분의 경우에만 행정절차법의 적용이 배제되는 것으로 보아야 하고, 이러한 법리는 ‘공무원 인사관계 법령에 의한 처분’에 해당하는 별정직 공무원에 대한 직권면직 처분의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용된다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 행정절차법(2012. 10. 22. 법률 제11498호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제21조 제1항, 제4항, 제22조 [2] 구 행정절차법(2012. 10. 22. 법률 제11498호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제2항 제9호, 구 행정절차법 시행령(2011. 12. 21. 대통령령 제23383호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제3호
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger