교원소청심사위원회결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the examination and decision of the petition in this case;
A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University.
The Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University on March 1, 2004 and served as a counseling and psychology professor from April 1, 2012.
B. On December 15, 2016, the Intervenor filed a complaint for rape, etc. with the investigative agency regarding D, which was a doctoral degree course in C University Counseling and psychological department.
However, on May 2, 2017, the prosecutor of the Gwangju District Public Prosecutor's Office believed D's assertion that he/she was raped from the intervenor on May 2, 2017, but, on the other hand, the intervenor's statement that he/she maintained the internal relationship with D from February 2, 2015 to May 2, 2016 maintained the internal relationship with D was subject to a disposition of uncomforcing evidence against the intervenor on the ground that he/she has credibility.
C. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff’s teachers’ disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor’s spouse, as a guide professor, had a sexual intercourse with the student to be protected under his/her responsibility, was an act of significantly impairing his/her dignity as a professor of high morality. On the other hand, the Intervenor’s act committed a disciplinary action against the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor’s honor was deteriorated due to the Intervenor’s act, and the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary action on the part of the Intervenor on June 9, 2017.
(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) D.
On July 7, 2017, the intervenor appealed to the dismissal of the instant case and filed a petition review against the Defendant.
On September 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the instant dismissal disposition on the ground that the grounds for the instant dismissal disposition is deemed to have been excessive, even though it is deemed that the grounds for the disciplinary action was excessive.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). [The grounds for recognition: Gap 1, 14, 16, 18, Eul 1, and Eul 2 (including the branch numbers)]
2. The intervenor's objection against the intervenor's unjust demand by taking advantage of his superior status as the guidance professor.