<Case Summary>

Court & Date

Seoul Administrative Court (Administrative Division 8), decision dated November 19, 2025


Key Issue

Whether disciplining a senior official for applying undisclosed hiring criteria during recruitment at an overseas diplomatic mission was lawful.


Background Facts

A senior official (A), serving as chair of a personnel committee at an overseas mission, oversaw recruitment for an administrative position.

After reviewing 24 applicants, A unilaterally selected five candidates for document screening without convening the personnel committee as required.

Two finalists (B and C) tied for first place under the announced interview-scoring method.

A selected B as the final hire based on “continuity and stability of work,” a criterion not disclosed in the job announcement.

B was already employed at the mission as a contract worker.


Audit & Disciplinary Action

The Board of Audit found that:

Applicants meeting stated qualifications were excluded, while others with unclear qualifications advanced.

An extra-announced criterion (“continuity of work”) was used to favor B.


The Ministry of Foreign Affairs imposed a three-month suspension, later reduced to one month by the Civil Service Appeals Commission due to A’s expressed remorse.


Plaintiff’s Claim

A challenged the sanction, arguing the punishment was excessive and procedurally unjust.


Court’s Holding

The court dismissed the challenge, holding that a one-month suspension was lawful and proportionate.


Court’s Reasoning

Consulting with staff did not excuse bypassing required committee deliberations.

The recruitment ignored announced evaluation results and relied instead on an unpublished, discretionary standard.

Even after being warned that selecting B would undermine fairness, A proceeded.

A admitted during the appeals process that applicant qualifications were not fully reviewed.

The case originally warranted a three-month suspension; reduction to one month already reflected leniency.


Why It Matters

Courts will uphold discipline where hiring decisions rely on criteria not disclosed in advance, especially in public recruitment.

Procedural fairness and transparency are mandatory in government hiring.

Prior working relationships cannot be used as de facto preferences unless clearly stated in the announcement.


Takeaway

> In public recruitment, what is not written does not count. Applying undisclosed standards, even with benign intent, can justify disciplinary action.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/215268