파면처분 취소처분 취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. Details and details of decision of the teachers appeals review committee;
A. The Plaintiff is an educational foundation that has established and operates Chigh School (hereinafter “instant school”) for the purpose of providing early childhood education, secondary education, and technical education on art.
The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a teacher newly appointed to the instant school on April 22, 2006.
B. On September 12, 2017, the principal of the instant school requested the Intervenor to request a disciplinary decision against the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor’s “indecent act, such as deception, neglect of duties, defamation, obstruction of duties, etc., violation of the obligation to maintain dignity, ② violation of the duty of good faith, such as the Plaintiff’s refusal of body and the preparation of a written pledge (a written pledge)”, ③ violation of Articles 7 and 8 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and Article 19 of the Child Welfare Act, ④ violation of the duty of confidentiality, such as divulgence of confidential information, and unauthorized divulgence of personal information,” and the Plaintiff requested the Intervenor to request a disciplinary decision against the Intervenor on September 22, 2017 after the resolution of the board of directors on September 21, 2017.
C. On December 20, 2017, the instant school teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to the effect that “the Intervenor shall be removed from office as of December 20, 2017,” on the grounds of “the Intervenor filed a civil petition against the Intervenor who suffered sexual harassment or sexual indecent act on September 17, 2016,” and the Plaintiff was removed from office on the same day (hereinafter “instant removal”).
On January 19, 2018, the intervenor filed a petition review with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the removal disposition of this case.
On March 14, 2018, the defendant's right of defense of the intervenor in the disciplinary procedure was significantly infringed because the grounds for the request for disciplinary decision on the removal of the case are not specified.
The removal disposition of this case is unlawful without the need to consider the remaining parts, since such procedural defects exist.
The removal of this case from office on the ground of “the removal.”