A ruling was made that it was illegal to expel a Marine Corps officer who entered the Army Aviation School's aviation officer training class without giving him a disposition letter.
The 7th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kook-Hyeon Kim) ruled on July 22 in a lawsuit (2021 Guhap 52150) filed by Marine Corps officer A, who was expelled from the aviation officer training class, against the director of the Army Aviation School, and ordered the cancellation of the expulsion. The ruling was in favor of the plaintiff.
Mr. A, who was commissioned as a bachelor's officer, was selected as a Marine Corps aviation officer in 2020 and entered the aviation officer training class at the Army Aviation School, but on December 30, 2020, '2020. 12. 9. When he was expelled from school through the resolution of the expulsion deliberation committee on the grounds of 'misconduct' in failing to follow the instructor's instructions for mutual exchange of evaluation-related personal data during the instrument flight course evaluation, he filed a lawsuit after reviewing the appeal. After being expelled from school, A returned to his original unit, the Marine Corps Command, and requested an appeal review on January 19, 2021, but as of 60 days later, no decision has been made.... The following is omitted.... The court ruled. In addition, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit without receiving the notice of disposition, and it is difficult to say that the plaintiff was fully aware of the basis and reason for the disposition until filing the lawsuit. Article 23 of the Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that expulsion from school requires the presentation of reasons for the disposition. (Even if there was an urgent need to take action, it is difficult to say that the grounds and reasons were presented at the plaintiff's request). Article 23 of the Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that 'when making a disposition, the administrative agency shall present the grounds and reasons to the parties,' except in cases where the entire content of the application is acknowledged as is.
Therefore, the court ruled that the dismissal had a procedural defect in that it did not comply with Articles 23 and 24 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that this defect could not be considered to be cured simply by the fact that the plaintiff was receiving assistance from a lawyer from the review of the appeal.
The 7th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kook-Hyeon Kim) ruled on July 22 in a lawsuit (2021 Guhap 52150) filed by Marine Corps officer A, who was expelled from the aviation officer training class, against the director of the Army Aviation School, and ordered the cancellation of the expulsion. The ruling was in favor of the plaintiff.
Mr. A, who was commissioned as a bachelor's officer, was selected as a Marine Corps aviation officer in 2020 and entered the aviation officer training class at the Army Aviation School, but on December 30, 2020, '2020. 12. 9. When he was expelled from school through the resolution of the expulsion deliberation committee on the grounds of 'misconduct' in failing to follow the instructor's instructions for mutual exchange of evaluation-related personal data during the instrument flight course evaluation, he filed a lawsuit after reviewing the appeal. After being expelled from school, A returned to his original unit, the Marine Corps Command, and requested an appeal review on January 19, 2021, but as of 60 days later, no decision has been made.... The following is omitted.... The court ruled. In addition, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit without receiving the notice of disposition, and it is difficult to say that the plaintiff was fully aware of the basis and reason for the disposition until filing the lawsuit. Article 23 of the Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that expulsion from school requires the presentation of reasons for the disposition. (Even if there was an urgent need to take action, it is difficult to say that the grounds and reasons were presented at the plaintiff's request). Article 23 of the Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that 'when making a disposition, the administrative agency shall present the grounds and reasons to the parties,' except in cases where the entire content of the application is acknowledged as is.
Therefore, the court ruled that the dismissal had a procedural defect in that it did not comply with Articles 23 and 24 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that this defect could not be considered to be cured simply by the fact that the plaintiff was receiving assistance from a lawyer from the review of the appeal.
