Gwangju

Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

President of Jeonnam University;

Litigation Litigation Performerss;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff's status

On January 1, 1997, the Plaintiff was appointed as a philosophical and full-time lecturer at the Jeonnam University, a national university, as a professor on April 1, 2009, and served as a professor in the philosophical and philosophical of the Jeonnam University.

B. On April 21, 2014, the Defendant demanded a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff to the General Disciplinary Committee of the Public Educational Officials at Southern University. On May 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct (hereinafter referred to as “instant misconduct”) and violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 58 (Prohibition of Deserting Office), and 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

[1] The Plaintiff promised not to repeat the same date by causing problems with graduate school students in 2009. While the Plaintiff was subject to minor disciplinary action (recomption) by impairing the dignity of public educational officials similar to the case in 2010, the Plaintiff demanded the students, who applied for Chinese philosophical study courses in 2014, using telephone and text, 30,000 won to whom the Plaintiff notified, and the Plaintiff’s (six students) was subject to 1.6 billion won to 30,000 won to 16,000 won to 20,000 won to 1.6 billion won to 20,000 won to 30,000 won to 20,0000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including each number, each of the following) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff recognized his mistake and reflects his depth; (b) there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant misconduct, such as the Plaintiff’s family affairs and economic circumstances; and (c) the instant misconduct is not a serious disciplinary cause such as acceptance of bribe and embezzlement of public funds; and (d) there are no personal benefits acquired by the Plaintiff due to the instant misconduct, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused by discretionary authority.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In the case of disciplinary action against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the person subject to disciplinary action shall be placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary action as an exercise of discretionary authority has significantly lost validity and thus it is deemed unlawful. The disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, depending on the specific cases, the contents and nature of the offense causing disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved by disciplinary action, criteria for disciplinary action, etc., and the contents of the disciplinary action can be objectively and clearly deemed to be objectively unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du13245, Oct. 11, 2012, etc.).

B. Determination

Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the Plaintiff considered all favorable circumstances to the Plaintiff, such as the circumstances leading to the instant misconduct, etc., even if the instant disposition was considered in light of all the circumstances favorable to the Plaintiff, such as the circumstances leading to the instant misconduct, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was a disciplinary action against the instant misconduct, to the extent that it is objectively unfair or considerably unreasonable under the social norms, and that it is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, and thus, constitutes an abuse of discretionary authority.

① In the course of studying academic research, university professors teach students at all times endeavor to improve their character and qualities, study the academic support and educational principles, and pre-trial education for students, so that more authenticity, morality, and ethics than ordinary professionals are required, and injury to dignity is likely to undermine the people’s trust in the society as well as teachers’ society.

② In the position of professor of Jeonnam University, the Plaintiff intentionally accessed the course of study and received money borrowed on several occasions. This appears to be very inappropriate behavior using the psychological burden of students. From around July 2009, the Plaintiff promised to prevent recurrence to the Defendant by causing a problem in the course of study with inappropriate monetary relationship with college students, and around December 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed a total of four million won from philosophical philosophy and graduate school A on four occasions and did not repay the same. The Plaintiff did not borrow philosophical philosophy and graduate school students on seven occasions on July 19, 2010 and did not repay 767,000 won from B and graduate students on seven occasions, and the Plaintiff did not pay her money to the Plaintiff and did not pay her money to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s negligence caused a very similar problem in that the Plaintiff was repeatedly subject to a disposition of reprimand under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that he/she violated his/her duty to maintain the dignity.

③ The Plaintiff appears to have fully repaid the loan to the students enrolled in the first semester in 2014, but the loan to the interest coupon is not deemed to have fully repaid the loan to the students enrolled in the first semester in 2013 (it is difficult to deem that the loan coupon was fully repaid on the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the credit union of the formernam University.)

④ The Plaintiff argued to the effect that the Plaintiff lost property due to the process of borrowing the loan, and that the child in the U.S. was forced to perform a sudden operation, and gave money to the Plaintiff by phoneing the house residing in the U.S....... The Plaintiff’s children were forced to use the house. However, the victimized student’s loan to the students in charge of the Plaintiff’s house located in the U.S. even if the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on the loan grounds is not consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, the Plaintiff’s borrowing of money to the students in charge of the Plaintiff’s house taking charge of the Plaintiff’s house of the Plaintiff’s children residing in the U.S. does not appear to have taken into account the circumstances leading up to the borrowing of money.

⑤ On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff used the student’s personal information that he/she became aware of in the course of performing his/her duties for an improper purpose, and received a summary order of KRW 2 million from the Gwangju District Court for a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

④ The Plaintiff did not perform the mandatory number of subjects of lectures under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, in violation of Article 4 of the Regulations on Public Officials’ Duties, and carried out an overseas trip for 323 days from September 201 to March 2014 without permission of the head of the agency. As seen above, the Plaintiff does not seem to have faithfully carried out the duty of lectures and research, which are the principal duties of university professors, for the recent several years, and in light of the fact that the number of subjects, except for the 10 subjects, established from January 201 to February 2013 and 2013, the Plaintiff did not seem to have made every effort to implement the mandatory number of subjects.

1. According to Article 2 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. on Public Educational Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education No. 175 of Apr. 9, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) / [Attachment Table], among the instant misconduct acts, where the degree of the misconduct is serious and intentional, each of the instant misconduct acts constitutes a violation of other duties of good faith and other duties of maintaining dignity. Therefore, even if the remaining misconduct acts are not serious, it is deemed that the instant misconduct acts are concurrent, and thus, even if the degree of such misconduct is not serious, it is difficult to view that the disciplinary committee under Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree, which applies mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary action on public educational officials pursuant to Article 5 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. on Public Officials, which applies mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary action on public educational officials, has more stages than the disciplinary action falling under the serious responsibility.

8) The Plaintiff’s wrongful act seriously undermines the public’s trust in public educational officials, and the public interest, such as the establishment of the public service discipline intended to achieve through the instant disposition, and the restoration of public confidence in public educational officials, is less than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff may incur due to the instant disposition.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-soo

Judicial branch support

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.