Homeland “Suk-yeol Yoon dismissing the disciplinary committee is the right decision … Look at the Supreme Court case”

Entry 2020.12.11 10:27 | Revision 2020.12.11 10:37

“If the purpose of delaying the disciplinary procedure is clear, the request for evasion is not allowed”
“Consideration of the disciplinary process, the behavior of the disciplinary, the reasons for evasion, etc.”
“You cannot participate in the vote by yourself, others can participate in the vote”

“If it is clear that the request for dismissal or disqualification is intended to delay the disciplinary process, it is considered that such request cannot be permitted by law.”

This is a Supreme Court precedent (sent on January 30, 2009) posted on Facebook by former Justice Minister Cho Guk on Facebook with the intention that it was a correct decision regarding the dismissal of the “ Evasion Request of the Disciplinary Committee of the Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Justice ” by Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol on the 10th.

This case, which deals with the confirmation of invalidity and annulment of the disciplinary provision, establishes that if the purpose of the delay is clear, “the request itself is irrelevant because it corresponds to the abuse of the right to request exclusion or evasion.” Or, the decision to avoid cannot be considered prohibited.

Former Minister Cho argues that it is legally justified to reject Yun’s evasion request to deliberately block discussions in the disciplinary committee. Furthermore, it is interpreted that a person subject to rejection (member of the disciplinary committee) may decide to evade.

Previously, President Yoon’s side requested the refusal of four out of five disciplinary committee members due to impartiality. However, the disciplinary committee rejected all of them. Yoon’s side is believed to have abused the right to appeal. In response, President Yoon rebelled because it was inappropriate for the target of the impeachment to decide to do so and that the disciplinary procedures were Nongdan.

Former Minister Cho also shared the precedent of the Supreme Court in the case of the cancellation of the new trial of the appeal for unfair dismissal, sentenced on November 26, 2015.

This precedent presupposes the ‘precedent of January 30, 2009’, and ‘if the request for refusal is intended to delay the disciplinary procedure here is, The decision must be made considering exhaustively the behavior adopted, the time and the number of requests for refusal , and the content of the reason for denial asserted as a request for denial. Criteria are presented to determine if a person receiving disciplinary action is for an explicit delay in a request to evade a member of the disciplinary committee.

Former Minister Cho said: “Even in the case of confirmation of nullity of dismissal, which was sentenced to the Supreme Court on November 27, 2015, although there are several complaints against the disciplinary commissioner, the disciplinary member who has applied cannot only participate in the resolution against him. You can participate by voting against others “.

The purpose of this is that if a request is made against each member of A, B, C and D, each member will not only judge the disciplinary request against them, but will be able to participate in the judgment against other members. It is a refutation of the fact that members who have been challenged by President Yoon’s side are not allowed to participate in the process of deciding whether or not other members should be challenged.

In the 1998 Supreme Court case, President Yoon argued that “if the cause of evasion is of a common nature, not only oneself, but also others cannot participate in the decision to evade.” “Disciplinary action for violating this is itself a firm legal rule and precedent.”