beta
서울고등법원 2017.05.31 2016누78358

정직처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of suspension from office for two months against the Plaintiff on August 25, 2015 is revoked.

3.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On May 10, 1978, the Plaintiff was appointed as a public school teacher and served as the principal at B elementary school from September 1, 2012.

On July 23, 2015, the Defendant requested the Gyeonggi-do General Disciplinary Committee for Public Educational Officials to make a resolution on “serious disciplinary action” on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, such as the grounds for the request for disciplinary punishment (hereinafter “grounds for the request for disciplinary punishment in this case”).

On August 18, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do General Disciplinary Committee of Public Educational Officials decided to take a second-year disciplinary measure of suspension from office on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act and violated Article 78 (1) 3 of the State Public Officials Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff engaged in an excessive physical contact with his/her parents and dancing,” “the head of the office in the course of transmission,” “,” “the mix “,” and “the mixer,” made a statement that includes the word “the mixer,” thereby inducing sexual humiliation to the present person.”

Accordingly, on August 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disciplinary action for two months of suspension from office (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) to the Plaintiff, along with a written resolution by the said Gyeonggi-do General Disciplinary Committee for Public Educational Officials (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers against the instant disposition. However, on October 28, 2015, the Appeal Commission for Teachers rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff were recognized and the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have exceeded and abused the discretionary power of disciplinary action.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition in this case was lawful or not, the grounds for disciplinary action, which served as the basis for the plaintiff's argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case, shall be held as parents and school assistants around February 11, 2014 among the grounds for the