(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.10.15 2015구합65377



1. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant’s motion for revocation of dismissal No. 2014-594 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is relevant.


The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a school foundation that establishes and operates the C University, etc., and the Plaintiff is a person appointed as C University professor on March 1, 1996 and served as culture and professor.

The Intervenor removed the Plaintiff on December 15, 2014 following the resolution of the teachers’ disciplinary committee, following the grounds for disciplinary action as follows.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】

1. The Plaintiff’s defamation of a school (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Reason 1”) damages the school’s reputation by continuously posting a letter of slandering B and C University in a large number of press media, such as Han-gu, SBS, and the sound of public, after April 2014.

2. From September 14, 207 to May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff violated Article 55 of the Private School Act and Article 23 of the Cuniversity Teachers Personnel Management Regulations, which prohibit the concurrent holding of office by holding office as a director, a representative director, and an intra-company director, and filed an appeal against the Defendant on December 22, 2014, against the instant disciplinary action. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to change the instant disciplinary action to one month from suspension of office on the ground that “the instant disciplinary action is legitimate, but it is excessive to recognize only the grounds for disciplinary action and to excessive disciplinary action.”

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unlawful on the grounds delineated below, on the ground that there was a significant defect in the procedure, and the disciplinary action for one month of suspension from office is excessive due to the grounds for the second disciplinary action, and thus, the instant decision is unlawful.

The plaintiff deprived of legitimate opportunity to make statements in disciplinary proceedings was present at the teachers' disciplinary committee held on November 13, 2014 and provided an opportunity to make statements.