beta
Text
The defendant shall pay 96,629,810 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from December 13, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a school foundation operating C University, and the Plaintiff was working as a professor of international trade and trade in C University from March 1, 201 to March 1, 201.
The Plaintiff, with the permission of the president of C University from March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018, worked as a research faculty member for the research activities at D University located in the U.S. P. S. S. P. S. S. S. S. S. M.
(b) The main contents of the faculty research year provision of the C University are as follows:
The purpose of Article 1 (Purpose) of the Act is to provide for the operation of a research year system for faculty members to exempt full-time faculty members of the Cuniversity from providing academic services for a certain period of time and to contribute to academic development by transferring them to research activities in Korea and abroad.
Article 2 (Period of Research Year) (1) The period of research year shall be one year or six months.
(2) In principle, the period of research year during his/her service shall be two years in total, but additional special research years may be granted.
(New December 7, 2016). Article 3 (Qualification for Implementation) (1) of the Act shall apply to any of the following qualifications:
1. A teacher who has served for at least six years as a full-time teacher of the C University or who has served for at least seven years after the end of a research year: Article 6 (Treatment) (1) of the year (amended by July 26, 2018) (1) shall maintain the status as a teacher of the Korea University during a research year;
(2) The researcher shall be paid the full amount of remuneration for the research year.
(3) The research year period shall be included in the number of teachers in continuous service.
Article 8 (Duty of Re-employment) (1) A teacher whose research year has expired shall be returned immediately, and a dispute arises between the plaintiff and the defendant as to whether the above provision was revised on May 22, 2015, and whether the above provision constitutes an employment rules, but the plaintiff was not subject to the duty of a two-year period, and the defendant was subject to the duty of a two-year period, even under the previous provision on May 22, 2015.