logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.12.06 2018구합102491
교원소청심사위원회결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are the part arising from the intervention of the third party by the defendant intervenor.

Reasons

1. Details of the petition review and decision;

A. B University is a private school established and operated by school juristic person C, and the Plaintiff is a full-time lecturer at the police department of the Department of Social Science on March 1, 2008, who was newly appointed as a full-time lecturer at the Department of Social Science on April 1, 2008, as an associate professor from April 1, 2012, as an associate professor from April 1, 2012, and as a professor from April 1, 2017.

B. Around June 15, 2017, students of B University filed a civil petition to the effect that the content of the comparative police theory, which was established in 2014 in relation to the Plaintiff’s subject, and the content of the comparative police system theory, which was established in 2017, was identical to the curriculum of the Plaintiff’s subject.

C. From July 17, 2017 to September 11, 2017, the Intervenor conducted an investigation into the Plaintiff, and then requested the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee to make a disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff on November 16, 2017 following deliberation by the Teachers’ Personnel Committee. On November 28, 2017, the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee decided to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for the following reasons against the Plaintiff:

The Intervenor issued a reprimand to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2017 (on January 1, 2018) in accordance with the above disciplinary resolution.

(hereinafter “instant reprimand disposition”). The Plaintiff converted the “Non-School Police loan loan” that was a general lecture from 2011 to 2015 to the Internet lecture in 2016 (hereinafter “the instant subjects”) and used the films of the “Non-School Police loan loan” in 2016, which was established as Internet lecture in 2016 (hereinafter “the instant subjects 1”). The Plaintiff changed the subject name of the subject in 2017 to the “Non-School Police System loan loan loan” (hereinafter “the curriculum code”: C0901), which was established as Internet lecture in 2017.

Since the lecture images for the two subjects are the same subject, the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the same subject, even though they are the same subject, measures to restrict the overlapping lecture of students are taken.

arrow