logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.10.06 2016구합1998
교원소청심사위원회결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was appointed as an associate professor at A University Technical Management Graduate School on September 1, 2012, and the term of appointment expired on August 31, 2015.

The criteria for examination for reappointment of the plaintiff are as follows:

▣ 교원인사규정 제36조(재임용의 요건) ① 교원의 연구ㆍ교육 능력에 대한 평가는 교원업적평가 규정을 따른다.

(2) The evaluation of qualifications as a teacher, the qualitative excellence of research and education, the attendance of students' guidance, contributions to the development of a university, etc. shall be conducted in conformity with the standards for examination for reappointment of teachers by departments and universities and colleges.

▣ 교원업적평가 규정 제96조(최초 재임용을 위한 요건) ① 최초 재임용을 위해서는 필요평점 외에 재임용ㆍ직위승진 등을 위한 학술논문 요건 시행세칙이 정하는 조건도 충족해야 한다.

▣ 재임용ㆍ직위승진 등을 위한 학술논문 요건 시행세칙 제9조(자연C계열) ① 자연C계열로서 최초 재임용 기간을 3년으로 선택한 교원은 다음 각 호의 조건 중 하나를 충족해야 한다.

1. 240 points of the academic thesis published in the International Aerospace;

2. 240 points of the academic thesis published in the International AA, B,C, or domestic Aerospace (at least 160 points shall be the horizontal point of the academic thesis published in the International Aerospace);

B. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of the teaching evaluation table, etc. for examination of reappointment, and the Intervenor submitted relevant data to the Plaintiff on June 2, 2015.

C. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff held a teachers’ personnel committee for review of reappointment with respect to the Intervenor. On the same day, the Plaintiff was prohibited from re-appointing the Intervenor at the said teachers’ personnel committee, and the reason was that the Intervenor did not satisfy the requirements for the first teachers’ personnel committee for review of reappointment. The results of the review of the teachers’ personnel committee as above.

arrow