해임처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On February 14, 1994, the Plaintiff was employed as a dietitian and served at an elementary school located in Daejeon Southern District. On September 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was appointed as a dietitian and served as Daejeon Elementary School (hereinafter “instant school”) from March 1, 201 to June 30, 2016.
On July 4, 2016 through August 5, 2016, the Daejeon Metropolitan Office of Education conducted a special audit of the instant school in relation to defective meal services, and on October 21, 2016, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Office of Education required a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the grounds of “inappropriate management of school meal services, improper management of school meal meals, improper management of school meal meals, improper management of school meal materials, improper management of school meal materials, improper management of school meal materials, improper guidance and supervision of nutrition teachers, improper guidance and supervision of cooks, etc.”
On November 28, 2016, the General Disciplinary Committee for Public Educational Officials in Daejeon Metropolitan City decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground of the grounds for disciplinary action specified in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action specified in attached Table 1”), and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on December 12, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers against the instant disposition. On February 22, 2017, the Appeal Commission for Teachers did not recognize the grounds for disciplinary action, but the remainder of the grounds for disciplinary action is recognized, and the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition review, deeming that the disciplinary action is appropriate.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the argument in this case as to whether the disposition in this case is legitimate or not, the disposition in this case should be revoked as follows, or as it is unlawful by abusing discretion.
Whether there exists a cause for disciplinary action or not.
The plaintiff is a nutrition teacher.