logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.11.02 2016구합65688
해임처분 등 취소 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a public educational official who was newly appointed as an English teacher on September 3, 1986 and served in B high school from March 1, 2015.

On July 15, 2015, when a civil petition was filed by the Plaintiff for sexual harassment and sexual harassment against the said female teachers, the Seoul Special Metropolitan Office of Education conducted an audit from July 17, 2015 to August 27, 2015, and on July 23, 2015, on the ground that “the fact of objection notified by the auditor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education is judged to be incompatible with the performance of his/her duties as a teacher,” the Plaintiff removed him/her from his/her office pursuant to Article 73-3 (1) 2 of the State Public Officials Act.

(hereinafter “Initial Removal from Position”). On August 2015, the Plaintiff was investigated by the police around August, 2015, and then sent the suspicion of indecent act by compulsion, assault, and violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual child abuse) to the prosecution on the charges of sexual harassment, sexual indecent act, assault, and assault against the relevant female teacher, and the student’s remarks against the student.

On October 19, 2015, the Defendant requested the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials to take a heavy disciplinary measure on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and Article 63 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act by making a statement of sexual harassment against students, sexual harassment and sexual harassment against the female teachers, and taking a poor job.

On October 21, 2015, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff from office on the ground that “a disciplinary decision equivalent to dismissal, dismissal, demotion, or suspension from office is required” under Article 73-3(1)3 of the State Public Officials Act.

(2) On October 26, 2015, the general disciplinary committee of public educational officials of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the grounds of sexual harassment against the female teachers, sexual harassment against the students, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on November 19, 2015.

hereinafter referred to as "the case."

arrow