정직처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Since being appointed as a teacher at B elementary school on June 3, 1997, the Plaintiff has served as a teacher at an elementary school. From March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff is serving as a teacher at C elementary school.
B. On August 1, 2017, the Defendant requested the Gyeonggi-do General Disciplinary Committee for Public Educational Officials to take a disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff on the following grounds.
The Plaintiff, at around 23:20 on May 12, 2017, was sentenced to the suspension of indictment for violation of the Road Traffic Act from the office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on June 16, 2017, as the Plaintiff was found to have driven a DNA rocketing vehicle in his/her name under the influence of approximately 0.167% of blood alcohol level in the section of Section 1 of the 196 underground parking lot at Pyeongtaek-si 2, Pyeongtaek-si 196, and was subject to the disposition of suspension of indictment for violation of the Road Traffic Act from the office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office in the horizontal Housing Site of the State Public Officials' Office on June 16, 2017, because the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain the dignity of
C. On August 25, 2017, the Gyeonggi-do General Disciplinary Committee for Public Educational Officials decided to take a one-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the grounds for the above disciplinary measure, and the Defendant issued a one-month measure of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on August 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant measure”).
On September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers, but was dismissed on November 15, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, 4 and 5 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;
3. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was waiting for a substitute driver in an underground parking lot along with his/her alcohol while waiting for a substitute driver in the underground parking lot, resulting in the risk of accidents, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was on board and waiting for a substitute driver. The Plaintiff’s vehicle is too close to the wall, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is chief.