파면처분취소
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 September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was appointed as C Instructor and worked for the pertinent university (hereinafter “instant university”).
B. On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared a written answer directly on the back of the name tag from among the Dos performed the test supervision at a doctoral degree course in a foreign language (English) course in a graduate school (English) course (hereinafter “the instant examination”) conducted at a graduate school (hereinafter “the instant examination”); and (b) delivered it to D who was an examinee (hereinafter “the instant response note”).
(hereinafter “instant wrongful act”). C.
On August 1, 2015, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith of public educational officials under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of maintaining dignity under Article 63 of the same Act, and removed the Plaintiff from office in accordance with Article 51(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to have abused the discretionary power that has been entrusted to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure because the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has considerably lost validity under social norms, it shall be deemed that the disciplinary measure against a public official is unlawful. In order to deem that the disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, it shall be deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and objectively deemed that the disciplinary measure is objectively unfair, in full view of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure
Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on September 24, 2002