beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of each disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a school juristic person established on March 20, 1971, and established and operated D Middle Schools and B High Schools (Gu E High Schools; hereinafter “B high schools”) in Seongbuk-gu Seoul.
B. On October 29, 2010, F, who was the chief administrative office of the BJ, received a total of KRW 54.2 million from the Seoul Northern District Court to the effect that “F, from January 22, 2008 to December 29, 2009, it would have received a total of KRW 5,4.2 million from G, a facility construction business operator, ordered the order for the installation of B facilities. From October 1, 2008 to July 3, 2009, F embezzled the construction cost of facilities in the course of carrying corporate funds on behalf of the Plaintiff at B, by means of falsely appropriating or receiving the difference between the corporation’s assets and the school expenses in the course of carrying out the business of the corporation funds on behalf of the Plaintiff from October 1, 2008 to July 3, 2009.”
(F) On July 22, 2011, the Seoul Northern District Court issued a suspended sentence of 2 years and additional collection of 54,200,000 won on October 22, 201, as a result of the crime of occupational embezzlement and the crime of taking property in breach of trust.
(2010No1746, hereinafter “instant criminal judgment”). As the Supreme Court dismissed the F’s final appeal on November 10, 201, the instant criminal judgment became final and conclusive on the same day.
C. On November 8, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) held a board of directors on November 8, 201 with respect to F; (b) taken a disposition of dismissal from one’s position (from the same date until January 31, 201); (c) decided reinstatement on February 1, 201; and (d) held a disciplinary committee on February 23, 201 and took measures of restriction on promotion of salary reduction three months and fifteen months after the expiration of the disciplinary action.
Article 66(3) of the Plaintiff’s Articles of incorporation provides that “General employees who have been sentenced to suspended sentence of imprisonment shall retire ipso facto.” However, on February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff amended the Articles of incorporation by striking the above provision, and subsequently, on February 22, 201.