교원소청심사위원회결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
1. Details of decision on the petition examination;
A. The Intervenor served as an associate professor in the medical and welfare information department at A University (hereinafter “instant school”).
B. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff, following the resolution of the teachers’ disciplinary committee, removed the Intervenor from office on the grounds of the grounds of the grounds for the following disciplinary reasons (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disciplinary reasons”).
During the class hours of the re-1 disciplinary ground, the school failed to provide education, such as taking lectures that are irrelevant to the class, and acting against this part as an educator, and spreads false facts that have not been confirmed to students, thereby defamationing the university, president, and school teachers.
At the time of May 2, 2015, the reason for disciplinary action was to call to the professor C, who is the principal of the school, to promote the corruption of the university and to report to an external institution, and to demand compensation in return, and to criticize the president and the planning director without any grounds in the process.
The reason for the disciplinary action is not clearly confirmed, which criticizes the president as a criminal who committed a serious criminal act, educational malicious criminal act, university manager as a person who committed a serious criminal act. This is true to state agencies (National Human Rights Commission, Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, and Ministry of Education), and the president's order in school order has been maintained.
The reason for disciplinary action No. 4 was that D reporters of the "Malman" contacted and met the intervenors, and that the reporters did not confirm the fact that they asked about the above petition, thereby publishing the contents of the "Abrupt's suspicion related to the Abrut doctrine, submission of a petition on human rights of professors within the school," on the Internet homepage of the E newspaper at issue, thereby impairing the honor of universities and the president.
The intervenor of the fifth ground for disciplinary action does not answer the personal question at school.