1. Overview of the case

 

The Gyeonggi-do government conducted a housing ownership status survey from December 17, 2020, to December 18, 2020, for candidates (of the 5^th grade) for promotion to the 4^th. The plaintiff, who was a candidate for promotion to the 4^th grade, owned two houses and the rights to purchase two studio-typed condominiums, but declared that he only owned two houses. The plaintiff was promoted to the 4^th grade in February 2021, while all 35 candidates for promotion to the 4^th grade who declared that they owned multiple houses were not promoted to the 4^th. After the plaintiff was promoted to the 4^th grade, he reported two studio-typed condominiums in his regular property report, and on August 9, 2021, the Gyeonggi-do government demoted the plaintiff for violating his duty of good faith.

 

2. Progress of litigation

 

The first instance court recognized the reason for the disciplinary action, but canceled the demotion on the grounds that there was a deviation and abuse of discretion in the disciplinary action.
The appeal court reversed the first instance decision and dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that not only was the reason for discipline recognized, but that the plaintiff was intentional or at least grossly negligent in misrepresenting his home ownership status, and that it would be unfair to consider the demotion to be an abuse of discretion in light of the fact that all 35 people who declared themselves as multi-homeowners were not promoted to the fourth grade.

 

3. Our role and the Supreme Court’s judgment

 

On behalf of the plaintiff before the Supreme Court, we argued that there was no reason for the disciplinary action against the plaintiff and the defendant illegally deviated from and abused its discretion, substantiating that the relevant laws, such as the Local Civil Service Act, stipulate that promotion appointments are subject to performance evaluation, career evaluation, and other demonstrations of competence, but that there is no legal basis for using housing status as a criterion for promotion appointments, and that excluding public servants from promotion solely because they are multiple homeowners is a significant violation of their right to exercise their official duties.
The Supreme Court accepted the plaintiff’s arguments, finding that if a person having authority to appoint a civil servant reflects factors unrelated to job performance as the main reason for evaluation, or makes such factors a uniform reason for exclusion or a passive requirement for promotion, this is unacceptable because the person arbitrarily exercises the right of appointment according to his subjective will without any basis in law, which is contrary to the purpose and objective of the constitutional professional civil service system and the principle of meritocracy as well as the provisions of the Local Civil Service Act, and that it is difficult to accept the failure to faithfully respond to a home ownership survey, which is conducted without any basis in law, as reason for disciplinary actions because it presupposes that public officials have a duty of obedience even to unfair instructions without any basis in law.

 

​□ Attorneys in charge: Jeon Gi-cheol, Ryu Jong-myoung, Kim Kyeong-yeon