beta
Text
1. Part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the superintendent of education in Gwangju Metropolitan City seeking the revocation of removal from office.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher and served in B Middle School, and was transferred to C Middle School on March 1, 2010, and served as a teacher in the first and second grade (school history) on March 1, 2014.
B. On July 25, 2014, the head of the District Education Office of Seoul Metropolitan City District Office of Education removed the Plaintiff from his office of education pursuant to Article 73-3(1)2 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “the first removal from office”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff failed to comply with the principal’s instructions in the process of handling excessive physical punishment and experience learning permission and performance evaluation, etc., and caused a large number of civil petitions by his parents.”
C. On October 10, 2014, Defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City superintendent of education issued a dismissal disposition pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the grounds that “the Plaintiff is a breach of good faith, breach of duty to maintain dignity, violation of duty to obey, violation of duty of equal treatment, violation of duty of equal treatment, and violation of duty to refrain from employment,” and Article 73-3(1)3 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “the second removal disposition”). On December 17, 2014, Defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City superintendent issued a dismissal disposition pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”).
The grounds for the disciplinary action of this case
1. Physical punishment and speech violence against students: Violation of the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity (hereinafter referred to as "grounds for disciplinary action 1");
A. The Plaintiff, on the ground that E students did not take the course of study or do not take a part in the course of study, had E students take up 100 to 200 times per day on March 8, 2014, a 800 to 100 to 200 to 200, respectively. On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff, on the ground that E students did not take part in the course of study, had E students take up 200 to 200 to 20 to 20 to 200 to e students need to take part in the course of study.