2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff's status

On January 1, 1997, the Plaintiff was appointed as a philosophical and full-time lecturer of the Human University, a National University, as a professor, and was promoted on April 1, 2009 as professors, and served as a philosophical and professor of the Human University of the National University.

B. Defendant’s disciplinary action

On March 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials at B University, the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct (hereinafter referred to as “instant misconduct”); and (b) requested a heavy disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 58 (Prohibition of Deserting from Office), and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act; (c) on April 21, 2014, the said Disciplinary Committee resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant misconduct; and (d) on May 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) pursuant to the resolution of the said Disciplinary Committee pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

【Cheating of this case】

1) In 2009, the Plaintiff promised to prevent the recurrence of the same day by causing an inappropriate monetary relation with graduate students. Although the Plaintiff had been subject to disciplinary action (reguination) by impairing the dignity of public educational officials and impairing the reputation of universities due to similar incidents in 2010, the Plaintiff demanded a student who applied for a Chinese philosophical course course in a semester 2014 using telephone and letters in February 2014. For this, some students (six) deposited KRW 1530,000,000,000 for each of the accounts known to the Plaintiff, and deposited KRW 30,000,000,000 to KRW 950,000,000,0000 from November 1, 2013 to February 2014.

2) When a public official intends to leave, leave, leave out the country, or take a business trip, the Plaintiff, in violation of Article 4 of the Regulations on the Work Status of Public Officials, which stipulates that he/she shall obtain prior permission from the head of his/her affiliated agency, was traveling abroad for a total of 323 hours every ten times from 2011 to 2014.3) According to Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, according to Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, he/she is obliged to give nine hours a week a lecture. However, the Plaintiff failed to perform his/her compulsory liability due to the closure of some subjects, such as the Major History Research, etc. from the first semester to the average of 60,000 hours every week.

C. Plaintiff’s request for review of petition

On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers seeking revocation of the instant disposition. However, on August 26, 2014, the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition review and notified the Plaintiff on September 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff recognized the Plaintiff’s mistake and reflects its depth; (b) there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant misconduct such as the Plaintiff’s economic situation; (c) the instant misconduct is not a serious disciplinary cause such as acceptance of bribe and embezzlement of public funds; (d) there is no benefit that the Plaintiff acquired by himself due to the instant misconduct; (b) the Plaintiff paid most of the borrowed money by paying KRW 3.460,00 to E; (c) the Plaintiff faithfully performed the professor’s duties by writing a thesis for the last three years; and (d) the disadvantage the Plaintiff suffered from the instant disposition, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary authority.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) 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 a disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it can be deemed unlawful. In order to deem that a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined by taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures, etc., and where it can be objectively and objectively deemed that the disciplinary measure is objectively unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16274, Dec. 21, 2006).

2) Examining the following circumstances cited by the Plaintiff in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, even if all of the circumstances cited by the Plaintiff are considered, the instant disposition is deemed a disciplinary action against the instant misconduct, which is objectively unfair, or excessively harsh to the extent that it is considerably unreasonable under the social norms, and thus, cannot be deemed as a deviation from and abuse of the scope of its discretionary authority.

① In the course of studying academic truth, university professors teach students at all times endeavor to improve their character and qualities, study the academic support and educational principles, and pre-depth education for students, and thus, require more strict dignity, morality, and ethics than ordinary professionals. The injury to dignity bears more strict duty to maintain dignity in that it is likely that not only the person himself/herself but also the society of teachers.

The Plaintiff, who is in the position of professor of B University, intentionally accessed the students who applied for the course of study and borrowed money several times. This seems to be very inappropriate for the Plaintiff to have taken advantage of the students’ psychological burden by using the professor status to exercise influence. Furthermore, the Plaintiff promised to prevent recurrence by causing a problem within the course of study from lending money from graduate students since 2009, and around December 17, 2010, “the Plaintiff borrowed 4 million won from philosophicals and graduates C on four occasions on July 8, 2010, and failed to pay the same. On July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff continued to be subject to reprimand on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain the dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act” due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repay 767,00 won from philosophicals and D on July 19, 2010.

③ The Plaintiff appears to have fully repaid the loan to the Plaintiff who applied for enrollment in the first semester in 2014. However, the loan of KRW 60 million to E who is the student in the first semester in 2013 cannot be deemed to have been fully repaid (E on May 14, 2014, issued a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s Buniversity Credit Union under the Gwangju District Court 2014TTT8284, but even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, E is merely a collection order of KRW 3,460,000 by the above seizure and collection order).

④ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in relation to the process of borrowing funds, the Plaintiff lost property due to the problem of family guarantee, and that the Plaintiff’s children in the U.S. were unable to perform the operation of her own her own her her her her her her her her her her her her her house residing, making loans to the students. However, the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her own her her her her her her her her her own her her her her her her her her her son.

⑤ On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 2 million (Seoul District Court 2014Da8007) due to the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

④ The Plaintiff did not perform the time limit for taking the responsibility for lectures under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, and, in violation of Article 4 of the Rules on Public Officials’ Service, sent an overseas trip for 323 days from September 201 to March 2014 without permission of the head of the agency, on 10 occasions over 323 days without permission. Considering the circumstances in which the Plaintiff published a thesis for 6 years from around 2011 to 3 years, it does not seem that the Plaintiff faithfully performed one of the principal duties of university professors.

7) According to [Attachment Table] Article 2 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. of Public Educational Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education No. 175 of Apr. 9, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply), the act of borrowing money using personal information of students during the instant misconduct constitutes "an act of improper use of personal information and a violation of other duties to maintain dignity" and thus constitutes "an act of improper use of personal information and a violation of other duties to maintain dignity", and the rest of the misconduct constitutes "an act of improper absence of other duties of good faith and duties" and "an act of improper absence of other duties" or "an act of improper absence of other duties or other duties" but it is difficult to deem that the disciplinary committee's disciplinary action is a violation of the above criteria for disciplinary action, considering the fact that the disciplinary committee's disciplinary action is more likely than an act of improper disciplinary action which falls under Article 5 (1) of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action of Public Educational Officials, etc., which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 5 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action.

8) The Plaintiff’s wrongful act seriously undermines the public’s trust in public educational officials, and the public interest, such as the establishment of the public service discipline intended to achieve through the instant disposition, and the restoration of public trust in public educational officials, is less than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff may incur due to the instant disposition.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gon

Judge Ginsung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.