해고무효확인
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the use of the 6th to 17th and 16th of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Part 4. The validity of the disposition of refusal to re-election of this case
(a) there is no objective reason for refusing the reappointment of a teacher who has filed an application for reappointment, that is, there is no ground for falling short of the criteria for review of reappointment, or that there exists such ground, in the event that the appointment authority has
Even if it is deemed reasonable under the social norms to deny the validity of the private law itself as a result of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power to the extent permitted in the examination of reappointment to examine eligibility by verifying the ability and qualities as a teacher, the decision to refuse reappointment may be deemed null and void if it is deemed reasonable under the social norms.
However, a decision to refuse reappointment refers to a case where such decision violates the principle of proportionality or the principle of equality as a result of the loss of fairness in light of the negative evaluation factors which are contrary to the principle of public interest or based on the determination of rejection of reappointment without reasonable grounds, and thus violates the principle of equality as a result of going against the standards of general application without reasonable grounds. This shall be comprehensively determined depending on the specific cases, including the content and nature of negative facts, the degree of conformity with the criteria for examination of reappointment, etc. The party asserting the grounds for invalidation of the decision to refuse reappointment due to deviation or abuse of discretionary authority shall bear
(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da42433 Decided July 29, 2010). According to such legal principles, first of all, the objective reasons for the refusal disposition against the Plaintiff’s re-election are as follows.