직위해제처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as follows, except for the dismissal, addition, or deletion as follows, and thus, it is identical to the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the separate sheet, excluding the part of the conclusion of April). Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article
The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance states " December 20, 2018" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance as " December 20, 2018 and December 28, 2018."
Part III of the first instance judgment shall be deleted from 3 to 5 pages below.
The defendant withdrawn the main defense that had been existing at the first day of pleading in this court.
The fifth sentence of the first instance judgment "3." shall be "2."
The fifth part of the judgment of the first instance is that "the plaintiff's assertion that there is no reason to dispose of" in the 11th part of the judgment is "the plaintiff's assertion".
The following shall be added to the sixth day below of the first instance judgment:
【4) The instant disposition was taken by the teachers opposing the Plaintiff’s performance of their duties by informing the Defendant of false facts in order to discipline the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s determination that “the Plaintiff lacks the ability to properly perform his/her duties with mental and physical disability” solely on the grounds on which the instant disposition was based is an abuse of discretion.
The following is added at the end of the seventh sentence of the first instance judgment. Inasmuch as the disposition of removal from position is required for the scope of the exclusive personnel authority of the appointment authority and constitutes a discretionary act with a considerable discretion to the appointment authority, barring special circumstances such as violation of relevant statutes or abuse of rights, it cannot be deemed that the relevant disposition of removal from position constitutes a case of ex officio deviation or abuse of discretionary power.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da30730 Decided June 26, 2008 and Supreme Court Decision 2006Du5151 Decided August 25, 2006, etc.). Paragraph 2 of the first instance judgment is deleted.
The 8th day of the judgment of the first instance.