Removal from Position

A personnel measure that maintains a public official's status while not assigning them a position; a deprivation-of-assignment action distinct from disciplinary punishment.

Removal from Position

Overview

Removal from Position (職位解除, jikwi haeje) is a personnel disposition that retains a public official's status as is while not assigning them a specific position. It is grounded in Article 73-2 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 65-2 of the Local Public Officials Act, and its legal nature differs from that of disciplinary punishment. It is issued on grounds such as a marked lack of ability or diligence in performing duties, a pending request for a resolution of heavy disciplinary action, indictment in a criminal case, or an ongoing investigation into serious misconduct; the subject loses their position and, while under a standby order, receives only a certain percentage of their salary.

Main Content

Legal Basis and Nature

Article 73-2 of the State Public Officials Act enumerates the grounds on which an appointing authority may order removal from position, and Article 73-3 of the same Act provides that a public official removed from position may be placed under a standby order. Since removal from position is not a disciplinary action, unlike dismissal or removal from office, the public official's status is retained, but it functions as a de facto strong sanction in that assignment and the authority to execute duties are stripped away. Case law regards removal from position as an administrative disposition affecting the rights and obligations of citizens, thereby recognizing its dispositive character, and holds that it is subject to appeals review and administrative litigation.

Grounds for Removal from Position

1. Where it is deemed that the ability or diligence in performing duties is markedly lacking

2. Where a disciplinary resolution corresponding to dismissal, removal, demotion, or suspension is pending

3. Where indicted in a criminal case (excluding a request for a summary order)

4. Where an investigation or probe by the Board of Audit and Inspection or an investigative agency is underway for serious misconduct such as bribery, sexual violence, or drugs

5. Other cases where the official is deemed unsuitable for performing duties, such as by damaging the dignity of a public official

In particular, "lack of ability or diligence" is used where issues such as neglect of duties, repeated failure to comply with instructions, or the lowest rating in work evaluation are at issue, and whether discretionary power was abused is frequently contested in litigation.

Standby Order and Remuneration

A public official removed from position immediately receives a standby order, and that period may not exceed three months. However, it may be extended exceptionally where disciplinary procedures are in progress or a criminal trial is ongoing. During the standby period, remuneration is paid at 80 percent of the salary amount, and for periods exceeding three months, 60 percent is paid. In the case of removal from position due to a request for a disciplinary resolution, 60 percent is paid. This is a device to guarantee a minimum livelihood even in a positionless state.

Distinction from Disciplinary Action and Ex Officio Leave

Since removal from position is not a disciplinary action, it is in principle not recorded in disciplinary records, and no resolution of the disciplinary committee is required. Ex officio leave (jikgwon hyujik), by contrast, is a separate personnel measure that suspends not only status but also all or part of remuneration. Disciplinary actions such as demotion or suspension differ in that they require a resolution of the disciplinary committee and allow an appeals procedure in case of dissatisfaction.

Appeals Procedure

A public official who wishes to contest a removal from position may request an appeals review to the Appeals Review Committee (for state public officials) or the Local Appeals Review Committee within 30 days from the date they became aware of the disposition. They may thereafter file administrative litigation to contest the illegality of the disposition and whether discretionary power was deviated from or abused, and if the removal from position is confirmed to be illegal, they may claim reinstatement together with the difference in unpaid remuneration.

Recent Trends

Since the second half of 2024, removal from position has emerged as a key issue in major personnel matters. In the wake of the December 2024 martial law incident, major military commanders and senior police and prosecution officials were removed from position or dismissed from their posts en masse, and as investigations and trials proceeded thereafter, the nature of removal from position as a "personnel measure, not a disciplinary action" drew renewed attention.

In 2025, as the zero-tolerance stance toward drugs, drunk driving, sexual misconduct, and workplace bullying in the public service strengthened, cases of immediately ordering removal from position at the audit or investigation stage increased. In the education sector, disputes continued over the criteria for paying remuneration during the standby period after removal from position in cases of child abuse or sexual crimes by teachers, and some local governments amended their internal personnel regulations to further specify the grounds and procedures for removal from position.

In addition, the Ministry of Personnel Management and each ministry are trending toward reorganizing guidelines in the direction of strictly interpreting the requirements for removal from position on grounds of "lack of ability or diligence." To reduce controversy over abuse of discretionary power, there are increasing cases of requiring objective evidence such as work evaluation data, records of compliance with work instructions, and records of opportunities given for improvement. At the same time, concerns are raised that if removal from position is prolonged, the positionless state persists for a long time, causing personnel backlog and remuneration burden, and shortening the standby period and expediting reinstatement and transfer procedures are being discussed as tasks.

Issues and Criticism

Removal from position is recognized as necessary in that it is a measure for restoring organizational trust through exclusion from duties and for a fair investigation of the case, but there are also concerns that it may conflict with the principle of presumption of innocence in that it imposes a long-term status disadvantage before a final judgment. In addition, equity issues in which the level of disposition differs in similar cases, and the possibility of abuse as targeted personnel actions based on political leanings, are constantly subject to criticism.