Supreme Court: "Lawyer at Legal Aid Corporation Not a Public Official... Disciplinary Action for 'Collective Behavior' Not Allowed"

The Supreme Court has ruled that lawyers affiliated with the Korea Legal Aid Corporation cannot be subject to disciplinary action because they are not subject to the National Public Service Act, which prohibits collective actions by public officials.

원본보기 아이콘

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Park Jeong-hwa) announced on the 24th that it overturned the lower court ruling, which dismissed the lawsuit filed by 12 lawyers affiliated with the Corporation seeking to nullify disciplinary actions, and remanded the case to the Daegu High Court.

The lawyers affiliated with the Corporation attended a workers' rally in April 2019 aimed at normalizing the Corporation and chanted slogans calling for the dismissal or resignation of the chairman, Gyo Woo-ga-heun. Subsequently, the lawyers did not comply with the employee performance evaluations scheduled for July 10 of that year but completed their work during the extended evaluation period.

In response, the chairman issued an unwritten warning, equivalent to disciplinary action, citing their participation in the rally chanting for the chairman’s dismissal and failure to complete the employee performance evaluations on time.

The lawyers filed a lawsuit contesting the disciplinary action, and the key issue in the trial was whether Article 66, Paragraph 1 of the National Public Service Act?which stipulates that public officials must not engage in labor movements or other collective actions unrelated to official duties?could be applied to the lawyers.

The first trial court ruled that the lawyers could not be disciplined, but the appellate court upheld the disciplinary action. The appellate court based its decision on Article 32 of the Legal Aid Act, which states that employees of the Corporation are considered public officials when criminal penalties or other legal sanctions are applied, concluding that the lawyers should be regarded as public officials and thus subject to the National Public Service Act’s prohibition on collective actions.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling. The bench stated, "The obligation under Article 66, Paragraph 1 of the National Public Service Act is fundamentally imposed on the premise that the individual bears the responsibilities prescribed by the Constitution and the National Public Service Act and that their status and position are guaranteed for this purpose," adding, "If the degree of responsibility and the guarantee of status and position are not met, it cannot be said that the National Public Service Act applies uniformly."

Furthermore, the court ruled, "Disciplinary action based on the premise that participation in an assembly constitutes a violation of obligations under the National Public Service Act is disciplinary action without grounds."

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.