logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.03 2017구합62723
해임처분취소청구기각결정 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

On March 1, 2003, the Plaintiff was newly appointed to C High School established and operated by the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “instant school”).

On April 21, 2015, four students registered in the instant school filed a civil petition with the following purport: (a) on the part of the Intervenor, the Plaintiff, a school teacher, expressed his intention of refusal, filed an indecent act against his will: (b) the Plaintiff, who was a school teacher, frequently kidddddd against his will, kiddd against his will (such as fingers, fingers, rhythms, handhys, handhs, khys, etc.); (c) the student knee, knee, knee, kne, and flad against his will.”

Accordingly, on May 12, 2015, the Intervenor Personnel Committee deliberated on whether to request a resolution on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. On May 29, 2015, the Intervenor’s board of directors requested a resolution on heavy disciplinary action against the Plaintiff to the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee. The Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on June 1, 2015.

On November 25, 2015, when the Plaintiff was indicted on charges of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act by indecent act), the Intervenor Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Plaintiff on February 19, 2016, following the approval of the board of directors on February 4, 2016, on January 27, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal.” On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant dismissal.

On January 11, 2017, the District Court rendered a judgment of suspended sentence against the Plaintiff. On February 22, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for examination on the grounds that the grounds for the instant dismissal were recognized and the determination is appropriate.

(hereinafter “instant decision”).

arrow