해고무효확인 등
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Fact that there is no dispute over the facts of recognition [based for recognition], Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 22, and the purport of whole pleadings;
A. The Defendant employs 150 full-time workers as a corporation whose purpose is to operate a private teaching institute business, such as operating “C University” (hereinafter “instant university”).
Since the Plaintiff was newly appointed as the representative of the secretariat of the University on July 24, 1996, the Plaintiff was assigned as a library staff after maintaining the class of class 3 in general service from August 1, 2008 after he was released from his position on the library site on October 1, 2007.
B. On January 18, 2013, the Defendant held a disciplinary committee against the Plaintiff to dismiss the Plaintiff on the grounds that (i) absence from office and absence from office without permission; (ii) refusal to comply with personnel orders and performance of duties; (iii) unauthorized travel; (iv) non-payment of the vehicle for university business; and (v) refusal to receive postal items (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1 through 5”); and accordingly, the Defendant’s chief director removed the Plaintiff on January 29, 2013 (hereinafter “instant removal”).
C. Of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act and the provisions of the defendant corporation, the matters related to the motion for challenge are as follows.
Article 24-8 (Challenge, etc. of Members) (1) Where there is a reasonable ground to believe that a member of the teachers' disciplinary committee is likely to make an unfair decision, a person to be disciplined may vindicate such fact in writing and apply for challenge.
(2) A decision on a challenge under paragraph (1) shall be made by resolution of the Committee.
In such cases, the person who has received the challenge shall not participate in the resolution.
(3) Where it is impossible to hold a trial on a disciplinary case because the members present at the teachers' disciplinary committee falls short of 2/3 of the incumbent members due to exclusion pursuant to Article 63 of the Act or challenge pursuant to paragraph (1), the chairperson of the teachers' disciplinary committee.