교장중임거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 1, 1983, the Plaintiff was appointed as the B High School Teachers and served at C High Schools from March 25, 1985 to February 28, 2002.
B. On May 17, 2005, the Superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for the reason that “at the time of the music teacher in Chigh School in C High School in 1997, the mother was aware of in the course of guiding the choir, from 1997 to September 2003, the parent was given more than 2 times in a year after the first sex relationship was established, and the physical relationship was created, and the civil petition was filed.”
hereinafter referred to as the "instant disciplinary action"
(C) The Plaintiff did not dispute the instant disciplinary action at the time. (c) On August 15, 2008, the Plaintiff was dismissed the instant disciplinary action record upon being dismissed. D. On September 12, 2008, the Plaintiff was appointed as E Middle School principal on March 1, 201 (term: from March 1, 2011 to February 28, 2015). E. The Plaintiff submitted an application for a mid-term teaching staff around December 2014, and the Superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education recommended the Defendant to be appointed as principal, but the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the appointment appointment as principal on the ground that there was no error related to sex, as above, on February 12, 2015, on the ground that there was no evidence of the Plaintiff’s proposal for appointment as principal, the Plaintiff did not include the Plaintiff’s proposal for appointment as principal in the list of No. 315-13, May 15, 2015.
2. As to the defense of this case
A. The instant lawsuit is unlawful, since it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff asserted that he/she had the right to file an appeal for the middle-standing teaching staff, and there is no
B. An administrative agency’s refusal to take action following the filing of an application against a citizen’s affirmative filing of the judgment constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.