해임처분취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 1, 1989, the Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher of an official school B, and since March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a teacher for the subject D of the Seosan C School.
B. The Plaintiff applied for a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff during the 2012-year regular screening process E through the 24th regular screening process.
The plaintiff shall not apply for an examination by improper means when he/she applies for the examination.
Nevertheless, on July 2012, the Plaintiff received a proposal from G working in the Cheongnam-do Office of Education to provide money and valuables of KRW 20 million on the condition that it would be given prior to the evaluation of the issues to be drawn up for a screening test (incluence, interview problems) from G, Cheongnam-do Office of Education.
After all, the plaintiff received G prior to the evaluation of the issue of setting questions for the examination, and applied for the examination and passed the final examination.
In addition, on August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff provided money and valuables of KRW 20 million in consideration of receiving G from G or screening examination problems at the parking lot of Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education in Chungcheongnam-do.
On June 3, 2013, the Defendant requested the General Disciplinary Committee of Chungcheongnam-do to adopt a resolution on the imposition of heavy disciplinary and disciplinary additional charges against the Plaintiff. On July 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition and imposition of additional charges (20 million won) under Articles 78 and 78-2 of the State Public Officials Act against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) and the Plaintiff violated Articles 56, 61, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Teachers’ Appeal Committee. The Teachers’ Appeal Committee recognized the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on November 18, 2013, and there is no procedural defect in the instant disposition.