해고무효확인
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. We affirm that the Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff on April 11, 2014 against the Plaintiff is null and void.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant’s establishment and the Plaintiff’s work (1) the educational system of C University was reorganized from April 2009 to six (6) years from April 2009 (so-called “24 (so-called “the 24-year system”), and D (hereinafter “D”) was completed a two-year course different from the existing one.
(3) The name of the Ministry of Education was changed from March 23, 2013 to the Ministry of Education on July 1, 2010 for the purpose of research on C education systems and operation, including the implementation of D. The Defendant was established on July 1, 2010.
The Ministry of Education referred to as the “Ministry of Education”
(2) From July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Defendant on October 1, 2010 and served as the secretary-general at the time of the establishment of the Defendant, as the Plaintiff had been in charge of D, since July 1, 2010 at the request of E at the time of the Defendant’s establishment.
B. On-site inspections by the Ministry of Education and removal of plaintiffs from office, etc. 1) The Ministry of Education may conduct on-site inspections by the defendant for two days from December 16, 2013 (hereinafter “on-site inspections of this case”).
After the implementation of the following matters, the following “improvements” and “Corrections” were notified. In particular, in the process ① the Defendant’s chief director and directors are used at their own discretion without verifying the use and procedure of the work promotion expenses budget, E and F, and G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) are distributed to various accounts without verifying the use and procedure of the work promotion expenses budget.
(A) 30 million won (on March 22, 2012 and November 19, 2012) as operating expenses, etc. were subsidized and the expenses (on November 22, 2012) was overpaid and erroneously appropriated.
“Aggravated charge, such as occupational embezzlement, was filed against the prosecution, and ② The Plaintiff was subject to heavy disciplinary action on the grounds of “many management of basic property and improper accounting,” “real estate purchase,” and “influence of value-added tax,” etc.