면직결정 무효 확인의 소
1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs are those who were employed as Yong-Nam New Abuse School D, and the Defendant is an educational foundation under Article 2(2) of the Private School Act, which establishes and operates the Yong-Nam New Abuse School.
B. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the removal from office based on Article 48(4), 5, and 6 of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s attitude of duty as a teacher falls under Article 48(2)1 of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation (Article 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the Teachers and Staff Service Regulations - the violation of Article 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the Teachers and Staff Service Regulations)” (i) from December 31, 2014 to January 31, 2015, and (ii) from January 23, 2015.
C. The Defendant Council resolved to dismiss the Plaintiffs on January 29, 2015, and the Defendant, on January 30, 2015, notified the Plaintiffs that “The Plaintiffs are dismissed from position as a teacher under Article 48(2)1 of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation (Article 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation) and granted special research tasks to improve the attitude. However, since the Plaintiffs submitted an answer to deny all of them without recognizing any mistake, it is recognized that there is no doubt, the Defendant’s articles of incorporation shall be dismissed as of February 1, 2015 pursuant to Article 48(8) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation.”
(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”). D.
On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Appeal Committee for Teachers seeking the revocation of the instant disposition of dismissal, and the Appeal Committee for Teachers decided on March 25, 2015 that “the instant disposition of dismissal against the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have been taken with the consent of the Disciplinary Committee, as well as that it violates the Defendant’s articles of incorporation and the Private School Act, which served as the basis for the disposition of dismissal.”
E. On March 30, 2015, the defendant against the plaintiffs according to the resolution of the board of directors of each "Defendant".