One Law Partners, LLC represented a local government in a lawsuit filed by the president of a public institution seeking revocation of a suspension-from-duty order and successfully obtained a judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims after establishing both the procedural and substantive legality of the suspension.


1. Overview of the Matter

The client was a local government that supervised the establishment and operation of a local public corporation and held the authority to appoint and dismiss its chief executive officer.

The president of a public institution under the client’s jurisdiction became the subject of allegations that he had attempted to provide improper preferential treatment to a particular company in connection with the operation of public facilities and contract administration. Following the public release of recorded conversations relating to the allegations, both an audit and a criminal investigation were initiated.

In response, the institution’s board of directors deliberated and resolved to suspend the president from duty, considering the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and the difficulties associated with the continued performance of his official responsibilities. The head of the local government approved the resolution and issued the suspension order.

The president subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the suspension order, arguing that the basis for the measure was unclear, that procedural requirements such as consultation with the board had not been satisfied, and that the suspension was unlawful because it had been imposed before any misconduct had been conclusively established.

Accordingly, the client retained One Law Partners, LLC to defend the action.


2. Key Issues

The first issue was whether the suspension order had been lawfully imposed in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and internal rules.

The plaintiff argued that the suspension order contained procedural defects because the prescribed form and legal basis of the order were unclear and because the required board consultation process had not been properly followed.

Accordingly, the principal issues included whether the order had been prepared in compliance with applicable personnel regulations and implementation rules, whether the board meeting and deliberation procedures had been lawfully conducted, and whether the local government head had properly exercised the authority to approve the measure.

The second issue was whether a public institution president could be suspended from duty while an audit and criminal investigation were still ongoing.

The plaintiff argued that because the allegations had not yet been established and the relevant bidding process had ultimately been canceled, no unlawful result had occurred and therefore no grounds for suspension existed.

As a result, it was necessary to assess the legitimacy of the suspension based on objective evidence concerning the alleged misconduct, the status of the audit and investigation, the responsibilities associated with the position of a public institution president, and the ability of the president to continue performing official duties in a normal manner.


3. Key Strategies and Actions

One Law Partners first conducted a comprehensive review of the Local Public Enterprises Act, the relevant enforcement decree, the public institution’s articles of incorporation, and applicable personnel regulations to establish the legal basis and procedural validity of the suspension order.

In particular, the firm submitted board consent forms, notices convening board meetings, meeting minutes, and resolutions to demonstrate that the board of directors had deliberated on and approved the suspension in accordance with applicable rules and that the local government head had lawfully approved the measure.

The firm further emphasized that suspension from duty, unlike disciplinary action, is a temporary personnel measure intended to prevent future operational disruption and argued that the prior explanation procedures claimed by the plaintiff were not legally required.

With respect to substantive justification, One Law Partners analyzed recorded conversations, documents relating to the selection of construction methods and contractors, audit materials, and investigation records supporting the allegations arising from the public facilities project and contractor selection process.

Based on this evidence, the firm argued that objective circumstances existed suggesting possible improper intervention in favor of a particular company and that the subsequent cancellation of the relevant bidding process did not eliminate the seriousness of the misconduct allegations.

The firm also emphasized that a public institution president occupies a position requiring a particularly high degree of public trust with respect to fairness and transparency and that, where serious misconduct allegations make normal performance of duties difficult, suspension from duty may be necessary to preserve confidence in the institution’s operations.

As a result, the court found no procedural defects in the form of the suspension order, the legal basis cited therein, or the process by which the board meeting was convened, deliberated, and resolved.

The court further held that, considering the nature of the allegations under audit and investigation and the responsibilities associated with the office of a public institution president, the suspension order was lawful because it was reasonable to conclude that normal performance of official duties could no longer be expected.

Accordingly, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims seeking revocation of the suspension order and ordered the plaintiff to bear the litigation costs.


4. Significance of the Matter

This case demonstrates that, even before a final criminal determination has been made regarding alleged misconduct by the head of a public institution, a suspension-from-duty order may be deemed lawful when the seriousness of the allegations and the individual’s ability to continue performing official duties objectively justify such a measure.

In particular, One Law Partners distinguished the legal nature of a suspension from disciplinary action and systematically established both the procedural validity of the board’s resolution process and the substantive justification for the suspension, thereby securing a favorable judgment for the client.

The firm also demonstrated, through both legal and factual grounds, the necessity of temporarily restricting the authority of a public institution head where public confidence in the institution’s operations and contracting processes may be undermined.

This case is significant because One Law Partners, LLC, acting on behalf of a local government, successfully established both the procedural and substantive legality of a suspension-from-duty order and obtained a judgment dismissing all claims in a lawsuit seeking its revocation.


-
In-Sun Go, Attorney | isgo@onelawpartners.com
Yeon-Ju Song, Attorney | yjsong@onelawpartners.com
Public Administration Team
-
Public Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com