logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.10.11 2018구합51393
부당해고구제재심판정취소
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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. 1) The Intervenor is a school foundation that establishes and operates educational institutions, such as C Universities, D Universities, and E High Schools, established on May 24, 1985, using approximately 1,500 full-time workers. 2) The Plaintiff is a person appointed as a professor in the mechanical department of C Universities and Colleges on March 1, 2014.

B. From July 2, 2007 to December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff was in office as the head of the F&D research institute. From January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was in office in G Co., Ltd., and was in office as the representative director of H&D from April 21, 2015. (2) The Plaintiff held 22 workplace skill development training instructors qualification certificates with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, while the Plaintiff was not in office as a certified tax accountant, certified public accountant, etc.

3) On March 1, 2014, March 1, 2015, and March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract for concurrent teachers with the Intervenor for one year’s contract period, and served as a professor at C college for three years in total. Article 5 or 5(1) of the above employment contract provides that “If an intervenor wishes to re-appoint an Plaintiff upon expiration of the contract period, he/she may be reappointed according to certain procedures specified in the relevant regulations, such as the provision on non-permanent teachers,” Article 11 provides that “the matters not specified in this contract shall apply or apply mutatis mutandis to the education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, school juristic persons B, and C, and Article 1(2) of the Employment Contract as of March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was removed from the department of non-permanent teachers at the expiration of the contract period, and the Plaintiff was called as a teacher at the 15th session of C. 216, 2016.”

J. The chief of machinery department J.

arrow