교원소청심사청구 각하결정 처분 취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.
The reasoning of this court, which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the partial contents of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act
3. The 19th page “Entry of Evidence A 1” shall be read as “each entry of Evidence A 1 to 6, and Evidence A 13.”
4. The following shall be added to five pages "................"
In addition, the provision was strengthened on March 4, 2013 that the transfer of professors to the closed department shall be consistent with the department subject to confinement. However, in the case of the fashion design department with the same or similar department as the Plaintiff, if the application for voluntary retirement is rejected, the transfer of the department is impossible, and the transfer is forced to be made to the department of culture. Of them, in the case of the department of culture, the retirement age is not guaranteed, and the payment is reduced to 50% of the principal salary. As such, the refusal of the application for voluntary retirement refers to the disadvantage of personal affairs, along with the transition to the status of a fixed-term professor, which entails the reduction of benefits, and the following is added to the “instru” of the 19th sentence.
【The principle of restructuring of professors following the closure of the Department” of C University operated by the Intervenor is a standard for personnel management of affiliated faculty members following the closure of the department and the abolition of the department in force since 2006. The Plaintiff’s ground for filing an appeal is not only a dispute over the status of abolition and professor based on “the principle of restructuring of professors based on the closure of the department,” but also the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the disadvantage in relation to the status at the appeals review committee. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to examine the ground for
3) The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable.
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.