교원소청심사위원회결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of decision on the petition examination;
A. An intervenor is a school juristic person that establishes and operates C University.
On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was appointed as a male professor at C University, and started to work as a full-time lecturer at C University. On March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was promoted as an assistant professor on March 1, 2014, and was in charge of culture and government of C University around August 2014.
B. On August 18, 2014, the Intervenor participated in the “C University Teachers Training Council of Korea” in the place of “D” located in Ischeon-si.
The Intervenor, at around 10 p.m. on the same day, she f, G and female professors, H, I, and J, once every time (two times every time for H) f. E, F, G and female professors, who were under the influence of alcohol at around 10 p.m.
The above act against female professors (hereinafter referred to as "the instant act") was committed.
C. Based on Articles 61(1) and 64 of the Private School Act on December 19, 2014, the Intervenor, who is the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the Plaintiff, demanded the Intervenor’s disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff on the ground of disciplinary action against the Intervenor’s disciplinary committee.
On January 15, 2015, the teachers' disciplinary committee deliberated on the disciplinary action case while the Plaintiff attended, and passed a resolution on the "spawn" against the Plaintiff based on Article 66(1) of the Private School Act.
Accordingly, on January 19, 2015, the intervenor notified the Plaintiff on January 19, 2015 that “the Plaintiff shall be punished by the dismissal on January 19, 2015,” based on Article 3(3) of the same Act.
(hereinafter “instant removal”) D.
On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review on the dismissal of the instant case with the Defendant based on Article 9(1) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status.
On March 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for review of the appeal on the ground that “the instant act is recognized as grounds for disciplinary action and there is no error of abuse of discretionary power in the removal disposition of this case.”