교원소청심사위원회결정취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant’s dismissal on September 20, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Intervenor is revoked.
1. The reasoning for this part of the disposition by the court is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part concerning “the grounds for examining the petition of this case” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the
However, the person who applied for the participation of the plaintiff in the second instance of the judgment of the first instance in the "D" later than the "D" of the second instance judgment.
hereinafter referred to as "applicant for intervention"
The addition of “D” and the addition of “D” are all “applicant for intervention in the Plaintiff”. 2. Whether the decision in this case is legitimate or not
A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the part on “the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 2.” of the first instance judgment except for the case where the court applied the “seriously heavy” of No. 3 of the first instance judgment to “seriously heavy”. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(b) The entry in the relevant statutes, etc. is as follows.
C. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s ground for dismissal of the instant case was found to be unlawful. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s ground for dismissal of the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (“Defendant Intervenor”) to the effect that “The Plaintiff seriously damaged his/her dignity as a university professor, such as having sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff Intervenor, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, who was a doctoral degree leading student, and thereby led to his/her failure to honor C University.” The same applies to the previous Private School Act (amended by Act No. 13938, Feb. 3, 2016).
) Article 61(1)3 (Article 2(1)3 of the Regulations on Disciplinary Action against Teachers at Cuniversitys) provides for the same purpose.
In the above provision, “the instant teachers disciplinary provision” is referred to as “the instant teachers disciplinary provision.”
(1) Article 55(1) of the former Rules on Disciplinary Measures, etc. on Public Educational Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, Apr. 9, 2015; hereinafter “Rules on Disciplinary Measures”).
Article 2 [No. 7 (e) of the Disciplinary Criteria in attached Table] is illegal as to the dismissal of this case.