감봉처분취소(기각결정취소)
1. The Defendant’s claim on August 26, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor for the revocation of the disposition of salary reduction in February 24, 2015.
An intervenor in the status of a party to the instant decision is an educational foundation under the Private School Act which establishes and operates C University, etc.; and the Plaintiff is a person who is promoted as a professor on March 1, 2009 after being appointed to C University on March 1, 1991.
On June 12, 2015, after the resolution of the teachers' disciplinary committee, the instant disciplinary intervenor against the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure for February of salary reduction against the Plaintiff as follows.
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】
1. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with a legitimate official order (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) on the ground that the “high school teaching faculty system” under the supervision of the public relations office is not consistent with his/her own good faith.
2. On April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff violated the student’s right to learn and the duty to maintain good faith (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”), and the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition review on July 2, 2015, on the ground that the Defendant’s instant decision was dissatisfied with the instant disciplinary action and filed a petition review with the Defendant on July 2, 2015, on the ground that “the instant disciplinary action is recognized by the first ground for disciplinary action and the pertinent disciplinary action is reasonable as reasonable.”
(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unlawful for the following reasons, since the Plaintiff’s argument as to the legitimacy of the instant decision, and that the instant disciplinary action was unfair for the following reasons. (hereinafter “instant decision”) / [the grounds for recognition / [this case’s decision / [the grounds for recognition], Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 20, and the purport of the entire argument
According to Article 15(2) of the Higher Education Act and Article 7(2) of the C University Regulations regarding the duties of teachers with respect to the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1, the absence of the grounds for disciplinary action cannot be deemed as belonging to the scope of duties of teachers.
In addition, the plaintiff cooperates with the senior director system.