logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.04.27 2017구합103466
파면처분취소기각결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

Reasons

On May 1, 1994, the plaintiff, who is a doctor of the decision, was appointed as a full-time lecturer at C University by the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") and served as the associate professor on April 1, 1998, the associate professor on October 1, 2003, and the associate professor on April 1, 2009.

Busan District Prosecutors' Office prosecuted the plaintiff on October 5, 2016 due to the violation of misappropriation and the Medical Service Act.

On December 8, 2016, the Intervenor’s Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff received total of KRW 15,630,000 in return for the prescription of drugs from around April 2013 to October 2015, the Plaintiff violated the duty of integrity as a teacher, damaged the dignity, and lost morality, and the Intervenor removed the Plaintiff on December 13, 2016.

(hereinafter “Removal”. On January 5, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the Defendant on January 5, 2017, but the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the said claim on March 8, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant decision”). On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 1,5630,000 ($ 1,1630,00) from April 2013 to October 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a penalty of KRW 16,206,00 and a penalty of KRW 16,200 ($ 4,000) for a violation of the Medical Service Act and a violation of the same Act, which became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the decision of this case as to facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the decision of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff will return to medical treatment after being subject to disciplinary action of suspension from office or less through the chairperson of the Council of Professors of the intervenor, the hospital enforcement department, and disciplinary committee's disciplinary committee's members

arrow