감봉처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.
1. Whether the decision of revocation of this case was legitimate from "the developments leading to the disposition of 1." in the reasoning of the judgment of this court in the part accepting the judgment of the court of first instance;
(a)a Party’s assertion;
B. Until the relevant statutes, each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the second half to the 7th half of the judgment of the court of first instance, 10-12 pages), and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 4
2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;
C. (1) As acknowledged earlier by the Intervenor, whether the refusal to comply with the request by the School Accident Investigation Committee (hereinafter “the instant committee”) to attend constitutes grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor is deemed to be a ground for disciplinary action against the Intervenor. Although the instant committee appears to be an organization constituted by the Plaintiff’s resolution at the board of directors when based on the facts and evidence acknowledged earlier, there is no statutory or the articles of association regarding the operation of the said committee, and the purpose of the committee’s organization, scope and investigation, the period of investigation, and the scope of delegation of authority of the board of directors is unclear. Thus, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s request for attendance against the Intervenor as “justifiable instruction of a superior in the performance of duties” as stipulated by Article 2(2) of the Service Regulations.
Therefore, the ground for non-compliance cannot be deemed as a ground for disciplinary action against the intervenor, as determined by the decision of revocation of this case.
I would like to say.
(2) Article 16(1)5 and 6 of the Private School Act provides that “The board of directors shall deliberate and decide on matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of the head of a private school and teachers established by a school foundation, and important matters concerning the management of a private school established by a school foundation,” and Article 19(1) of the Private School Act provides that “the chief director shall be a school foundation.”