logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.29 2015나15353
해임처분무효확인 등
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant's dismissal on March 6, 2013 against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a social welfare foundation that aims at the operation of rehabilitation facilities for the disabled, special schools, and educational projects, and has established and operated C Schools, which is a special educational institution for the mentally handicapped, on November 13, 1981. The plaintiff was employed as a fixed-term teacher of C Schools on March 1, 2005 and was employed as a teacher on March 1, 2009.

B. On May 9, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education regarding misconduct such as abusive language, superior, etc. against the Plaintiff’s club staff. Accordingly, the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education conducted a service audit of C schools for four days from May 20, 201 and May 24, 2011 to May 26, 201. Based on the results of the above service audit, the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education requested the Defendant to make a heavy disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff on June 21, 201. 2) On August 12, 2011, the teachers’ disciplinary committee of C schools neglected to provide a new duty as teachers and neglected to take lessons to the socially weak, and neglected to take lessons, such as assault and assault against the Plaintiff, sexual harassment against the students, assault against the Plaintiff, sexual harassment against the Plaintiff, violation of Article 5 of the Private School Act, and removal of the Plaintiff’s dignity from office under Article 5 of the Private School Act.

3) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity, etc. of the above removal disposition (U.S. District Court 201Kahap20280, Nov. 2, 2012, 201) and filed a complaint against the Defendant for removal as of November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff did not exclude AE and AM from the disciplinary committee members despite the Plaintiff’s motion for challenge against AE and AM, and Article 62 of the Private School Act.

arrow