logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.16 2019가합1138
징계처분취소
Text

1. We dismiss the part of the instant lawsuit seeking nullification of removal from position.

2. The Defendant is against the Plaintiff on July 17, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 1993, the Plaintiff was appointed as C college machinery and assistant professor established and operated by the Defendant, and was appointed as associate professor on April 1, 1997, and as professor on April 1, 2002, respectively, and served as professor of the above school until now.

B. Around December 2016, C University Machines and D, who are professors holding concurrent posts, have heard from C University Machines and Students E to the effect that “the Plaintiff, while taking the above subjects, has given an examination for the end of the term of the first semester of 2016 and the end of the electronic application machine system subjects, was given to him/her by proxy during the above subjects,” and around that time, submitted a written petition related thereto to the university’s side and reported the above fact to the C University Machines and the director of the Department.

Around that time, there was also a report on the suspicion of giving the above examination questions to the media.

C. Accordingly, through the written statement submitted by the above E and the interview with the Plaintiff, the C College conducted the process of verifying the Plaintiff’s misconduct, including the above suspicion, and the president of C College requested the Defendant to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on April 19, 2017.

On June 26, 2017, the Defendant requested the Defendant’s Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “instant Disciplinary Committee”) to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for the following reasons, and simultaneously removed the Plaintiff from his position (hereinafter “instant removal from position”) on the ground that such disciplinary action was requested on the same day.

A person subject to disciplinary action (the plaintiff) shall be deemed to have conducted a tour guidance even if he did not comply with the field training guidance during the departure period, and shall receive the guidance fees. ② Overseas travel without the approval of the head of agency, ③ it shall be deemed to have conducted a class practice in the electronic pass-up system for personal reasons, ④ the examination report by neglecting the preparation and management of the examination questions has leaked to the parties in advance.

arrow