[파면처분무효확인][집20(1)민,179]
A case where a removal from office for a private school teacher is deemed to have been exceeded the scope of discretion;
The fact that a director who leaves his residence without prior consent of the school authority or a principal's negligence is free from the instruction to suspend attending a school without obtaining a letter of recommendation to suspend attending a school, the fact that a person is refused to receive a letter of recommendation from the principal necessary to continue attending a school, and the fact that a person was forced to receive an instruction to suspend attending a school, which led to an excessive speech, does not constitute the most serious reason for removal, and the disposition is null and void.
Article 61 of the Private School Act
Plaintiff
Defendant School Foundation
Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2828 delivered on July 16, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2828 delivered on July 16, 1971
The appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Defendant 1’s attorney’s grounds of appeal
In light of the records, it is difficult to recognize the facts found in the original judgment, and there is no error in the rules of evidence in the process of finding facts, and then the original judgment is reasonable for the defendant to be subject to disciplinary reasons (3) (4) (5). Considering whether the above disciplinary reasons are more severe than the plaintiff to be removed, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff left his domicile without the prior approval of the school authorities and there is a serious reason for the removal of the plaintiff from Incheon. However, in light of the reasons for disciplinary action (4) as well as the reasons for disciplinary action, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff's voluntary removal from office without his own recommendation of the school principal and it is hard to find that the defendant's removal from office without any further instruction of the head of the school, and the defendant's removal from office cannot be seen as a serious reason for the plaintiff's removal from office. However, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff's removal from office without any specific instruction of the head of the school's disciplinary action, and that the plaintiff's removal from office should not be decided in the school (5).
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu