beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.10.05 2015구합101985

재임용거부처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision;

A. On September 1, 1998, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer in management and marketing of the Cuniversity operated by the Cuniversity B (hereinafter “instant school juristic person”). On October 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was promoted to C University Services Management Department and the associate professor.

B. However, on December 9, 2014, the instant school juristic person, including the Plaintiff, conducted the evaluation of achievements of those reappointed on March 1, 2015, and notified the Plaintiff on December 10, 2014 that the research performance and deliberation point (0% of the research performance and 58.4 points) fell short of the re-employment standard (200% or more of the research performance and 60 points or more of the deliberation point).

(C) The defendant changed the above 58.4 point to 59.4 point on the ground that the above 58.4 point was caused by mistake).

On December 29, 2014, the instant school foundation held a teachers’ personnel committee and deliberated on whether to re-appoint the Plaintiff. On December 30, 2014, the instant school foundation rendered a disposition to refuse re-election (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff falls short of the ordinary point of view and research performance.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition review with the Defendant on January 22, 2015, but the said claim was dismissed on March 18, 2015.

(Defendant’s dismissal decision is referred to as “instant decision”). [Ground of recognition] 1-1, 2, 2-2, 3-1, 2-1, 3-2, 1-2, and 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

A. Although the disposition of the Plaintiff’s assertion should be revoked on the following grounds, the decision of this case, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review of an appeal, is unlawful as it misleads the Plaintiff of the fact, and erred by misapprehending

1. Article 53-2 (7) of the Private School Act of the deprivation of opportunity to vindicate the plaintiff shall provide the teacher with an opportunity to attend the teachers' personnel committee and state his opinion or submit his opinion in writing on the designated date for a fixed period of not less than 15 days in the course of deliberation for reappointment.