logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.07.18 2017누874
감봉처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for deletion or modification of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Plaintiff has maintained a separate relationship with C prior to the instant act, and even after the instant act took place, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s instant act was an act that may cause sexual humiliation or aversion, and the Plaintiff did not have a position to instruct C and sent the instant letters regardless of school work, so the instant act did not have a relation to the pertinent act. However, considering the statement of evidence Nos. 31 through 34, witness F’s testimony, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff and C did not have a special relation to one another, or that it was understood that having sexual speech and behavior between one another, unlike other teachers and staff members, was understood as having been understood as having understood as having understood the Plaintiff’s sexual words and behavior by attending a meeting, etc. conducted by the workplace after the instant act. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff took place as a requirement of sexual harassment, it cannot be deemed as having understood that he did not directly expressed the Plaintiff’s duty to handle the pertinent sexual speech and behavior, as the Plaintiff did not directly represent the Plaintiff’s duty’s work opportunity or comprehensive performance.

arrow