It was reported on the 8th that Shim Seong-bo, the former head of the Presidential Records Center of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, filed a lawsuit to annul his unjust dismissal but lost in the first instance. Shim was appointed during the Moon Jae-in administration and dismissed under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration.
The Administrative Division 12 of the Seoul Administrative Court (presided over by Director General Kang Jae-won) ruled on the 17th of last month, stating, “We dismiss the plaintiff’s claim” in the lawsuit filed by Shim against the Minister of the Interior and Safety regarding the annulment of his dismissal.
The Ministry of the Interior and Safety removed Shim from his position in January 2023 and dismissed him in May of the same year. The grounds for his dismissal included ▲ illegal and unjust instructions related to the management of presidentially designated records ▲ verbal abuse and inhumane treatment of some employees ▲ coercing a staff member on sick leave to take unpaid leave. Shim was appointed on September 10, 2021, near the end of the Moon Jae-in administration, and was dismissed about 1 year and 8 months later. The term for the head of the Presidential Records Center is 5 years.
According to the ruling document, Shim instructed staff to create operational regulations allowing the review of presidential records that had already been made public to be converted back to non-public status through the public review council of the Presidential Records Center. Additionally, he continuously directed staff to review presidentially designated records still under protection. The staff who received these instructions reported that, without relevant legal basis, the actions were illegal and refused to comply. They claimed they received inhumane treatment, including insulting remarks from Shim after they refused the orders.
Shim appealed to the Ministry of Personnel Management for a review of his disciplinary action, claiming that it was unjust. After his claim was dismissed, he filed a lawsuit at the Seoul Administrative Court. At that time, he also filed a motion for a provisional injunction to suspend the dismissal decision, but the court did not accept it.
Shim argued regarding the grounds for his disciplinary action that he had attempted to reclassify records that should have remained non-public as public records, stating, “The direction to review presidentially designated records was part of the preparations for the planned designation revocation of the 16th and 17th presidential records.” He also said, “I merely reprimanded the staff for their passive work attitudes within an appropriate range.”
However, the first instance court judged that “there is no legal basis for reclassifying presidential records that are designated as 'public' under the Presidential Records Act as 'non-public'” and that “the authority of the head of the Presidential Records Center, as defined by related laws, was excessively and unjustifiably interpreted, leading him to issue multiple work directives that exceeded the legitimate scope.” It further stated that he “neglected the duty to protect and preserve records as required by the relevant provisions of the Presidential Records Act and other regulations.”
The court also noted that “Article 17 of the Presidential Records Act allows for the establishment of a separate period (protection period) during which access to or reproduction of presidentially designated records is not allowed or the request for submission of materials does not need to be complied with, and during the protection period, access is permitted only in limited and restricted cases.” It continued, “Even as the head of the Presidential Records Center, it is clear that one cannot arbitrarily access presidentially designated records during the protection period, which directly contradicts the purpose of the protection period system established by law.”
Additionally, the court acknowledged grounds for the disciplinary action, including inhumane treatment of staff and coercing a sick employee into taking a health leave of absence. It concluded that “there is no evidence that this disciplinary action is clearly unjust or that it constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
Shim's side appealed the first instance ruling on the 7th.