정직2월처분무효확인 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The first instance court accepted only the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of invalidity, and dismissed the “part of claim for fraudulent materials” among the Plaintiff’s claim, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed as to their lost part, but thereafter the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the appeal.
Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the defendant's appeal of the judgment of the first instance.
2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part related to the claim for confirmation of invalidation) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part related to the claim for confirmation of invalidation), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In Part 2, the "nick point in the educational business area" in Part 15 is regarded as "the result of reflecting 200 points in the educational business area due to the disciplinary action in the three-month period of the above suspension."
Parts 2, 17 through 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 10
On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap21876, supra, seeking confirmation of the disciplinary action against the suspension of office in March 13, 2012, and the invalidation of the disposition of refusal to re-election as of December 20, 2012, and received a judgment in favor of the Defendant on July 10, 2014.
Therefore, although the Defendant appealed, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Na39420) committed an act that constitutes grounds for disciplinary action on December 17, 2014, including the Plaintiff’s criticism of other professors before the students, criticism of the students who do not comply with his/her own emulation, or mentions the disadvantages of students who do not hear his/her emulation, etc., but the suspension of office is deemed null and void for three months over excessive restriction, and the Defendant’s rejection disposition was the main cause of the above disciplinary action that is null and void for the Defendant’s re-employment disposition, which cannot be deemed as a review based on reasonable grounds.