해임처분취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From March 1, 1996 to February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff served as a private middle school teacher who was appointed as a public school teacher on March 1, 2007. From March 1, 2010 to D middle school teacher, the Plaintiff was appointed as Chungcheongnam-nam Office of Education F on March 1, 2012.
B. On June 3, 2013, the Defendant of the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff demanded a resolution of heavy disciplinary action and disciplinary surcharge three times against the Plaintiff to the General Disciplinary Committee of the Chungcheong Public Officials Act. On July 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of dismissal and disciplinary surcharge (16 million won) against the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 69 and 69-2 of the Local Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) and the Plaintiff violated Articles 48, 53, and 55 (Duty of Integrity) of the Local Public Officials Act.
On July 201, 201, the Plaintiff prepared money and valuables upon receipt of a proposal to provide money and valuables of KRW 20 million to pass the I Open Screening Examination from Chungcheongnam-nam Office of Education H.
After that, the plaintiff received a written answer to the examination from H prior to the evaluation of the six questions and the three questions of interview, and passed the final examination and passed the examination.
On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff provided H with money and valuables of KRW 16 million in return for receiving examination problems at the parking lot of the G Office of Education.
In addition, the Plaintiff received H’s instructions and sent the examination questions to K working at J High Schools.
C. On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers seeking the removal of the instant case and the revocation of the disposition imposing surcharges for disciplinary action. On November 18, 2013, the Appeal Commission for Teachers is deemed to have all disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff made a copy of the issue upon the request of H to bring K.