손해배상(기) 등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. As to KRW 54,770,417 and KRW 14,400,00 among them, from January 1, 2013 to August 29, 2013.
1. The facts under the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 9, 25, and 26 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply).
On March 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as a branch education and full-time lecturer at C University University (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant’s branch education and a full-time lecturer) operated by the Defendant, and on January 24, 201, the Plaintiff was appointed as a associate professor from the Defendant on January 24, 201.
(2) On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff was subject to removal from office on February 28, 201. (b) The Plaintiff filed a request for review of an appeal seeking revocation of each of the above dispositions with the Appeal Committee for Teachers against the first removal from office and removal from office. On June 13, 2011, Article 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 of the Attached Disciplinary Reason No. 1 are deemed grounds for disciplinary action, but the remainder of Articles 4, 5, and 6 are not recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, and the first removal from office is lawful, but the application for revocation of the first removal from office is dismissed on the ground that the first removal from office is excessive, and the legal relationship between the teacher and the school juristic person is altered by such decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8729, Jan. 13, 2011).
AB made it.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the above decision, and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment revoking the above decision of the Appeal Committee for Teachers on the ground that the attached Form 3, 7, which was recognized by the Appeal Committee for Teachers in the case of 2011Guhap19710 on June 14, 2012, cannot be deemed as the grounds for disciplinary action, but the first disposition of removal from office and dismissal cannot be deemed as the grounds for disciplinary action, and the first disposition of removal from office and dismissal are abused.