해임처분취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The developments leading up to the instant disposition and the following facts are apparent in the records.
(1) On March 1, 2003, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a special teacher at H elementary school on March 1, 2003, and was transferred to the special teacher at I elementary school on March 1, 2006 and was transferred to the special teacher at B elementary school on March 1, 2007.
(2) From June 14, 2009 to June 13, 2010, the Plaintiff temporarily retired from office on the grounds of depression. From June 14, 2010 to June 13, 201, the Plaintiff used annual leave on the grounds of traffic accidents for 12 days from June 14, 2010, and thereafter made a traffic accident after nine months from June 26, 201 to March 25, 201, and thereafter extended the period by three months (from March 26, 2011 to June 25, 201).
After May 26, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted the restoration to the original state due to the expiration of the period of temporary retirement and the extinguishment of the grounds for temporary retirement, and the Defendant appointed the Plaintiff from the temporary retirement of disease on June 26, 201.
(3) From June 10, 201 to August 5, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for sick leave on the grounds of symptoms, saliva, saliva, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant sick leave”). The Plaintiff continued to return the application for sick leave on the grounds that it is the same disease as that of the Plaintiff’s temporary retirement, and the Plaintiff continued to return the application for sick leave on the ground that it is the same as that of the Plaintiff’s temporary retirement. In other words, the Plaintiff sent the phone, text message, and content-certified mail to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not continue to work at work.
(4) On October 10, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition to dismiss the Plaintiff as of October 11, 201, pursuant to Article 78(1)1 of the State Public Officials Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was absent from office without permission for 46 days from June 26, 2011 to August 23, 201 and violated Articles 56, 57, and 58 of the State Public Officials Act.
B. (1) The Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition, which was rendered by the Ulsan District Court 2013Guhap66, but the said court rendered the said judgment on October 15, 2013.