국가인권위원회성희롱결정처분취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was a public official in general service (industrial assistant) working at C University, an agency affiliated with B (hereinafter “C University”) and was in charge of the management of cleaning service employees.
B. Non-party D (hereinafter “non-party D”) was dispatched to C, a staff member of the cleaning service company E, and worked for C.
C. On June 14, 2017, the Nonparty filed a petition with the Defendant as follows (hereinafter “instant petition”).
① On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) stated to the Nonparty that “the Nonparty would be uneasyed by her husband; (b)” and “Is the Nonparty,” and on April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff committed sexual harassment by stating that “Is the Nonparty, who would not have been able to use it at night,” and that “Is the Nonparty’s right to use it for night.”
(2) On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) opened the cleaning team leader and the facility leader on the first floor above the main hall of the CJ on April 28, 2017; and (b) conducted an investigation as to whether the Nonparty was an investigator or investigator, including the Nonparty, who confirmed the facts of sexual harassment damage, that “CCTV data has been available to the relevant police station; (c) may be flowed to the police station due to an accusation; and (d) was frightened by the Nonparty.”
(hereinafter the act of June 12, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant act No. 2”) D.
As a result of the investigation of the instant petition, the Defendant decided on December 19, 2017 to recommend the Plaintiff to attend special human rights education administered by the Defendant as necessary to prevent recurrence of similar cases pursuant to Article 44(1)1 of the National Human Rights Commission Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant act constitutes sexual harassment under Article 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the National Human Rights Commission Act and constitutes a discriminatory act of infringement of equal rights, and that the instant act constitutes a violation of human rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution.