해임처분취소
1. Of the litigation for the retrial of this case, the part which asserts Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act is dismissed.
(c) 2.2.
1. The following facts are significant in this court:
The Plaintiff was appointed as a public educational official on March 1, 1992, and served in C High School (hereinafter “C high”) from March 1, 2010 to February 28, 2013, and served as a teacher of G middle school from March 1, 2017.
B. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act as follows, and accordingly, dismissed the Plaintiff through a resolution of the General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials in Gwangju Metropolitan City pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “previous Disposition”).
On October 201, the Plaintiff, who worked as a fixed-term teacher in CJ, proposed that D would be employed as a private school teacher by “one time, with the knowledge of the route that can be employed as a private school teacher” and that D would be employed as a private school teacher. Upon D’s approval, the Plaintiff, in collusion with E, had D prepare for KRW 80 million as a fund for employment.
Then, on December 14, 201, five members, including Plaintiff, E, F, D, and D’s mother, paid KRW 80 million to F on the condition that D, from the coffee shop located in the Gwangju Metropolitan City Standing District, up to March 1, 201, up to March 1, 201, he would employ D as a private school teacher, and F, for the guarantee of payment, F, E, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate with D’s mother’s mother.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff received the above KRW 80 million in collaboration with E and F.
C. On February 8, 2017, the Appeal Commission for Teachers filed a petition against the Plaintiff, and the previous disposition was revoked on the ground that the previous disposition was abused or abused the discretion due to excessive disciplinary action, taking into account various grounds for determination. D.
Accordingly, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff on March 31, 2017 through a resolution of the General Disciplinary Committee of Gwangju Metropolitan City for Public Educational Officials again on the ground of the foregoing disciplinary cause.