2012AD 12132 Nullification, etc. of dismissal

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney A-at-law, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

B Educational Foundation

Representative B 'the President B'

Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al.

Attorney Lee Jae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant B

April 12, 2013

May 3, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Removal from office of the Defendant against the Plaintiff on April 9, 2012 and disposition of dismissal on June 25, 2012

each confirming that the invalidation is null and void.

2. The defendant shall each month from June 26, 2012 to the reinstatement of the plaintiff to 3,13,830 won, and from June 26, 2012.

4,067,820 won shall be paid with money calculated in proportion to 4,06 won.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a school juristic person operating C High School (hereinafter referred to as "C"), and as a school juristic person operating C High School (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant), D, a South-North of the founder of the defendant juristic person, is registered as the chairperson and the South-North E, respectively. The non-party F is in office as the principal of C'.

2) On November 1, 1995, the Plaintiff, as the third south of the founder of the defendant corporation, was employed as a general staff member of the defendant school on November 1, 1995, and was promoted to the head of the administrative office on June 29, 2007. On February 28, 2010, the Plaintiff resigned from the head of the administrative office on February 28, 2010, and was appointed as a teacher and a principal acting as an agent on March 1, 2010 according to the resolution of the board of directors of February 18, 2010. However, on March 5, 2010, the Plaintiff was reappointed as the head of the administrative office of "C" on September 11, 2010, while he was unable to perform his position due to the disposition of approval of the non-election of teachers

B. On April 6, 2012, the president of the Defendant Corporation: (a) issued a recommendation from the above F on April 6, 2012; and (b) on April 9, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a removal order to suspend attendance at work for 90 days from April 10, 2012 (hereinafter “instant removal order”); (b) on April 10, 2012, the above F requested the Defendant Council to take a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff; (c) on May 18, 2012, the eight members registered at the board of directors at the Defendant Council agreed on a resolution among seven members present at the board of directors, and one dissenting vote.

3) On May 25, 2012, the above D demanded a heavy disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff to the Committee on Disciplinary Action against the Plaintiff. On June 7, 2012, the Disciplinary Committee notified the Plaintiff of the attendance at the Disciplinary Committee on June 14, 2012. However, the Plaintiff did not submit a written statement on June 13, 2012 and did not appear at the Disciplinary Committee. However, on June 14, 2012, the above D held a general staff disciplinary committee and decided to take a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the instant dismissal disposition”). On June 25, 2012, the pertinent pertinent provisions, including the Private School Act, and the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, are as stated in the attached Table.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul evidence Nos. 16, Eul evidence No. 22-2, Facts with this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff;

1) The phrase “a person who lacks the ability to perform his duties, which is the cause of the instant disposition of removal from position, which is the cause of the instant disposition of removal from position,” or “a person who has extremely poor work performance or whose work attitude as a general employee is unfaithful” refers to a person whose work performance is extremely poor or whose work attitude is unfaithful due to a remarkable lack of ability to properly perform physical and mental duties, and does not constitute a violation of an order falling under the grounds of disciplinary action, a violation of an official duty, or a violation of neglect of duties. Therefore, it is unreasonable to dismiss the Plaintiff from his position

2) The Defendant Council decided to request the instant disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff on May 18, 2012. However, at the time, the instant disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff was passed on the 13th of the same month for the director E, and the director G was served on the 11th of the same month for the director G, and the resolution of the board of directors was passed on the 11th of the same month for the said G. On May 18, 2012 for the reason that the resolution of the board of directors on May 18, 2012 violated Article 17(3)1 of the Private School Act, which is a mandatory provision, due to the defect in the convocation procedure. The dismissal of the Plaintiff, which is based on such a resolution of the board of directors, is null and void due to procedural defect.

B) On May 25, 2011, when the president D requested a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff on several occasions since March 11, 201, the Plaintiff was ordered to grant prior approval or report to the principal of the school on the business trip, annual leave, vacations, attending (on the spot) and going out of the school, etc., but there was a case of multiple times from time to time. Although the disciplinary committee stated as one of the grounds for the disciplinary resolution, the disciplinary committee stated as one of the grounds for the disciplinary resolution, but the disciplinary committee did not request a disciplinary resolution from November 10, 201 to March 4, 201, the reason for refusing to use the restaurant, the reason for refusing to use the restaurant, the reason for refusing to provide a disciplinary resolution to the principal, the reason for refusing to provide a disciplinary resolution prior to the disciplinary resolution, and the reason for refusing to dismiss the Plaintiff as well as the reason for disciplinary action in this case, which was not recognized as invalid since the Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to present the grounds for disciplinary resolution at all.

3) The grounds for removal from position and dismissal in the instant case are neither grounds nor distorted nor exaggerated grounds for removal from position and dismissal.

4) Deserting from and abusing the discretion of the disciplinary action against the instant dismissal disposition

Even if certain grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, such grounds cannot be deemed to have reached the extent that they cannot continue to maintain an employment relationship with the Plaintiff under social norms. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff faithfully worked for about 17 years from November 1, 1995, and that there was no previous disciplinary action, etc., the instant dismissal disposition is unlawful and null and void since it exceeded the limits of discretion.

5) Obligation to pay wages

As seen above, the removal from position and the removal from position are null and void, and since the Plaintiff’s failure to provide labor is attributable to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay wages in proportion to the amount of KRW 3,133,830 reduced to the Plaintiff from June 26, 2012 to the Plaintiff’s reinstatement.

(b) the Defendant;

1) Article 17(3) of the Private School Act provides that the procedure of dismissal of the instant case is a procedural provision necessary for convening a board of directors, and cannot be deemed a mandatory provision. The validity of the resolution of the board of directors with defects in the convocation procedure shall be determined depending on the seriousness of the procedural defect.

B) Even if a notice for convening a meeting was delayed from 1 to 2 days, it did not affect the exercise of the deliberation right or voting right, 7 directors other than G among 8 directors attend the meeting to agree on the resolution for disciplinary action. Even if the notice for convening a meeting was delayed for the first day, the resolution of the board of directors is a minor defect. Thus, the resolution of the board of directors is merely a minor defect.

2) Existence of the grounds for removal from position or dismissal

The plaintiff, as the head of the administrative office, unfairly interfered with school affairs and school affairs and caused conflicts among school members. The plaintiff has disturbed school accounting order, and has committed unlawful acts such as refusing or failing the direction of the president and the principal on his/her own behalf. This constitutes a reason for dismissal from position and disciplinary action.

3) Appropriateness of the instant dismissal disposition

Considering the fact that the degree of the Plaintiff’s misconduct is heavy and continues for a long time, the rejection by the members of the school of the Plaintiff is very serious, and that the Plaintiff’s continued to work for a school is highly likely to cause enormous damage to the normal operation and educational activities of the school, and that the Plaintiff’s dismissal, which is not a removal disposition, is rather minor, and the removal disposition of the Plaintiff is not a removal disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff is a family member of the founder. The dismissal disposition of the instant case cannot be deemed as abuse of discretionary power or objectively unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Whether removal from position is permitted due to grounds for disciplinary action

1) In light of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 4384 of May 31, 1991), "where the performance record is extremely poor due to a remarkable lack of job performance, the reason for ex officio dismissal" under Article 70 subparagraph 2 of the same Act clearly states "when a public official violates this Act or an order issued under this Act," "when a person violates his duty or neglects his duty," or "when he damages his body or dignity, regardless of whether it is inside or outside of duty," the act does not constitute "when a public official violates his duty or damages his body or dignity." In light of the above, the act does not constitute a violation of an order corresponding to the reason for disciplinary action, a violation of official duty, a violation of duties, or a violation of duties, or a public official's body or dignity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu63, Mar. 11, 1986).

2) However, pursuant to Article 70-2 of the Private School Act and Articles 82 and 44(2)1 of the Articles of incorporation of Defendant Corporation, the reason for dismissal to the Plaintiff, who is a cause of general office of private school, is "a person who lacks the ability to perform his/her duties, whose work performance is extremely poor, or whose work attitude as a teacher is unfaithful," and the reason other than that prescribed by the reason for dismissal under the former State Public Officials Act is separately stipulated in the former State Public Officials Act. Thus, it is difficult to see that the above case’s legal principle, which strictly distinguishes the reason for dismissal

3) The reason for dismissal from position, which is "a person who is not negligent in his/her work attitude," overlaps with that of "when he/she violates or neglects his/her duties" as a reason for disciplinary action under Article 61 (1) 2 of the Private School Act, so it cannot be deemed that the reason for dismissal from position under the Private School Act and the reason for disciplinary action are strictly distinguishable. Thus, the above D merely made removal from position due to reasons falling under the grounds for disciplinary action.

The mere fact that the disposition of removal from the position cannot be deemed an unlawful disposition. 4) The reasons stated in the reasons for the disposition of removal from the position, which the above D cited as the reasons for the disposition of removal from the position, are the reasons for the dismissal from the position, and the reasons for the disposition of dismissal from the position, which are stated in the separate reasons for the disposition of removal from the position, can be deemed to fall under the reasons for the dismissal from the position of official or the negligence of duties, and the reasons for failing to comply with the respective instructions.

As a result, the work attitude can also be deemed to constitute a ground for dismissal, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Whether a resolution of the board of directors is necessary to request a resolution of the board of directors for a resolution of a general employee

According to Articles 2(1) and 3 subparags. 1, 16(1)5, 53-2(1)1, 61(2), and 64 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274 of Jan. 13, 1997), matters concerning appointment and dismissal of teachers of private universities are matters to be deliberated and resolved by the board of directors of a school foundation. However, with respect to disciplinary actions such as removal, dismissal, etc., a person who has authority to appoint and dismiss the relevant school foundation shall request the relevant teachers’ disciplinary committee to take disciplinary action and take disciplinary action according to the result thereof. Although it is not explicitly stated whether it is necessary to deliberate and make a resolution at the board of directors of the relevant school foundation, removal, dismissal, and dismissal of a school foundation subject to disciplinary action under the same Act also belongs to appointment and dismissal of a teacher, and thus the request of the board of directors for disciplinary action is deemed necessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du85858, Oct. 13, 2000).

Article 83 (1) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation and Article 64 of the Private School Act provide that the provisions applicable to private school teachers shall apply mutatis mutandis to disciplinary action against general employees. Thus, the above legal principles as applicable to private school teachers shall be equally applied to the procedures for request for disciplinary action by the plaintiff

(B) the existence of any defect in the convening process;

According to Gap evidence Nos. 27 through 31, Eul evidence Nos. 23-1 and 2, and ① May 18, 2012

Article 17 (3) of the Private School Act provides that the board of directors shall notify each director seven days prior to the convocation of the board of directors at least when a meeting is convened. In light of the fact that the board of directors held a meeting as one of the agenda items for a resolution on disciplinary action against the plaintiff, ② that the board of directors is held on May 11, 2012 in the case of directors G, and that the notice of convening the board of directors reaches the board of directors on May 13, 201 in the case of directors E, ③ that the director E was present at the board of directors, and that the director G shall be present at least seven days prior to the convocation of the board of directors. In light of the above provision that Article 17 (3) of the Private School Act provides that the convocation of the board of directors shall be notified at least seven days prior to the convocation of the board of directors in the convocation of the board of directors, the notice of convening the board of directors shall be issued seven days prior to the convocation of the general meeting.

See, 24794, et al.)

(2) As seen earlier, Article 17(3) of the Private School Act provides, “When convening a board of directors, at least seven days prior to the meeting shall be notified to each director, specifying the purpose of the meeting: Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply where all the directors are gathered and all the directors request the holding of the board of directors.” However, the purport of the above provision is to ensure substantial exercise of the rights and voting rights of the directors. However, since the notice of convening a board of directors was merely delayed than the statutory period, and the director’s prior notice of convening a board of directors did not interfere with his/her rights and voting rights, the resolution of the board of directors shall be deemed valid.

(3) On May 18, 2012, the notice of convening a convocation notice for G was revealed to the effect that the notice of convening a convocation notice for G was delayed for one day and three days respectively. However, on May 18, 2012, the director E was present at the board of directors to exercise voting rights and discussions, the director G did not attend the board of directors on May 18, 2012, but the above F, the principal of the school, requested the resolution of the Defendant Council on April 10, 2012, which would have been known of the purpose of the meeting in advance, cannot be deemed as being hindered in the proper exercise of voting rights and voting rights of directors E and G, and the above resolution cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the above defect was found in the convocation procedure.

2) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2-2, evidence Nos. 3-2, evidence Nos. 10-3, and evidence Nos. 10-3, which are not specified in the disciplinary resolution of the Defendant Corporation General Staff Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Committee") and all of the arguments concerning the disciplinary resolution of the Plaintiff, 1. At the time of requesting a disciplinary resolution of the Plaintiff to the Defendant Corporation General Staff Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Committee"), paragraph 12 of Article 12 of the written request for disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary resolution of the Plaintiff, which states that the Defendant Corporation General Staff’s disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee’s general staff member’s general staff member’s general staff member’s general staff member’s disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary resolution of the disciplinary committee’s non-compliance with the reasons for the disciplinary resolution of the case.

B) Even if the disciplinary committee’s decision was rendered on 10 occasions before and after 20 days without permission, it cannot be deemed that such a disciplinary decision was made on 10 occasions before and after 10 days without permission, and if the disciplinary committee’s decision was continued to exist until 1 days after 20 days of absence without permission, it cannot be deemed that such a disciplinary decision did not change the identity of the first disciplinary committee’s absence without permission and does not interfere with the plaintiffs’ exercise of right to defense (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu299, Sept. 25, 198, etc.). Further, it cannot be deemed that such a disciplinary decision was made on 19 days before and after 20 days of absence without permission, on 20 days of absence without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da1649, Apr. 23, 196).

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the dismissal disposition of this case by the disciplinary committee of this case cannot be deemed null and void because it is due process. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. Whether there exist grounds for removal from position and dismissal of the instant case 1) delay in the public announcement of recruitment of fixed-term teachers (Article 3 of the ground for removal from position and dismissal 6 of the ground for removal from position)

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, 17, and 21 of the evidence Nos. 10-2 and the whole arguments, the above F, who was in a position as an assistant principal and principal acting for the principal, ordered the Plaintiff on January 4, 201, to re-announce the above recruitment notice as soon as possible through H division belonging to the administrative office on the 11th of the same month. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff, despite the fact that the recruitment notice was deferred on February 9, 2012 and the Internet homepage of the Office of Education, is recognized. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instruction of the principal acting for the principal and the president, and intentionally delayed the recruitment of one of the important duties of the Defendant corporation, which constitutes grounds for disciplinary action prescribed in Article 83 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Defendant corporation and Article 61-1 (1) 2 of the Private School Act.

B) Voluntary implementation of the principal recruitment process (Paragraph 4 of the grounds for removal from position, Paragraph 4 of the grounds for removal from position)

According to the purport of the evidence No. 7, No. 17, No. 21, No. 10, No. 15, No. 16, and No. 21, the plaintiff's statements and arguments that were published by the board of directors on the recommendation of the head of the board of directors. The plaintiff, without the above D's approval, voluntarily posted the public notice of the head of the school under the name of "C" and the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education's Internet homepage, and then, the plaintiff commissioned I, E, J, and K as the members of the board of directors and the above public notice of the appointment of the head of the school and the head of the school's authority to the above public notice of the appointment and dismissal of the head of the 3rd meeting, and the plaintiff's appointment and dismissal of the head of the 1, No. 15, No. 2, and No. 21, No. 3, the above public notice of the head of the school's authority of the 3rd meeting, and the above public notice of the head of the school's.

C) interference with the functions of the board of directors (Article 5 of the Grounds for Removal from Office, Paragraph 7 of the Grounds for Removal from Office)

According to the purport of Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 14-16, Eul evidence 14-16, Eul evidence 22, Eul evidence 21-3, and Eul evidence 21-3, the following facts are as follows: (i) the above D orders the head of the board of directors to appoint the principal and other discussions on February 11, 201 and February 17, 201; (ii) the above D orders the head of H to the public notice of the board of directors meeting; and (iii) the plaintiff was willing to obtain approval by the board of directors with the notice of the board of directors meeting meeting; (iv) the above D refused to request the plaintiff's official seal in his custody on February 16, 201 to notify the board of directors meeting directly; and (v) the director's notice of convening the board of directors was inevitably notified to the director on February 17, 201, and (v) the above notice of convening the board of directors was issued.

2. On 18. 18. The plaintiff sent a reply to the purport that "the plaintiff sent a text message inevitably to the above E due to the plaintiff's rejection of approval." According to the above acknowledged facts, the plaintiff intentionally avoided duties by refusing to approve the official opinion held by the board of directors, and intentionally delayed the holding of the board of directors. Thus, this constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 83 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation and Article 61 (1) 2 of the Private School Act. (The plaintiff did not obtain the plaintiff's approval at the time of the notice of the board of directors meeting, and reported the fact to the plaintiff without the above D's approval. Thus, the plaintiff did not make a signature because the final approving authority had already obtained approval, and the actual board of directors did not have any influence on the affairs since the plaintiff did not gather the opinions of the family members of the above founders and did not refuse to appoint a specific candidate who had been appointed at the previous board of directors, and therefore, the plaintiff presented a new statement to the purport that he had presented a notice to the above 20th of the administrative affairs.

8. 30. 30. The above argument of the plaintiff can only be seen as grounds for disciplinary action, since it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff's above argument is likely to believe, and whether the holding of board of directors is interfered with, the plaintiff's above argument is without merit).

D) interference with the board of directors’ duties (Paragraph 7 of the ground for removal from office, Paragraph 5 of the ground for removal from office)

The defendant issued each of the above dispositions on the grounds that the plaintiff is the family member of the founder from March 2010 to March 2011 and that the board of directors of the defendant corporation did not gather the opinions of the founders and thus interfere with the affairs of the board of directors, such as mobilization of the family members to encourage the defendant's directors to attend the board of directors, etc. However, each of the above dispositions on the grounds that the above facts was insufficient to recognize the above facts only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, and 21-2 of the evidence No. 10-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them, the above reasons do not constitute grounds for removal from position or dismissal.

E) Failure to comply with the principal’s instruction (Paragraph 8 of the grounds for removal from position, and Paragraph 8 of the grounds for removal from position)

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, and 23 as well as the entire arguments, the Plaintiff ordered the head of the above F FF to frequently report the administrative affairs, etc. from March 201 to the Plaintiff. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the order of the principal of the school, thereby failing to comply with the order of the principal, thereby violating the duty to obey the superior officer under Article 80 of the Articles of Incorporation, Article 55(1) of the Private School Act, Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act. This constitutes a violation of the duty to perform his duties, and thus constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 83 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Defendant Corporation, Article 61(1)

F) Voluntary processing and non-compliance with the investigation cooperation issue at the police station (Paragraph 10 of the Grounds for Removal from Position, Paragraph 9 of the Grounds for Dismissal Disposition)

C. (1) The facts acknowledged in E) and the entire purport of the statements and arguments in E evidence 10-1, 2, 23, and 24 are as follows: (a) even if the Plaintiff was ordered by the head of the relevant school to report on the administrative affairs, etc., the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she arbitrarily responded to the investigation without any reporting to the principal of the school and the president of the relevant corporation, who was requested by the Busan East Police Station to cooperate in the investigation of school meals and corruption related to the construction of the school, on August 10, 2011; and (b) on the same ground as seen in E, the Plaintiff constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 83 of the Articles of incorporation of the Defendant corporation and Article 61(1)2 of the Private School Act.

G) A school honor based on the inquiry of the school meal problem in the Gu office (Article 12 of the Grounds for Removal from Position, Paragraph 10 of the Grounds for Removal from Position, and Paragraph 10 of the Grounds for Removal from Position)

According to the purport of Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 10-2, and the whole arguments and arguments, the plaintiff, through the Internet homepage of the Korea Food and Drug Administration on December 13, 201, can be recognized that the plaintiff made a call to confirm who is the owner of the delivery vehicle in the course of supplying food materials to the sanitation and employees of the Dongdong-gu Office on December 14, 201, on the Internet homepage of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, for the violation of the law by the distributor who supplied the food materials of the school meal service as a vehicle not reported to the competent Gu office. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff made an inquiry to the Gu office or the Korea Food and Drug Administration beyond his/her own authority, or that the plaintiff injured the school's reputation by making an inquiry as above, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise.

2) Participation in school affairs (Article 1 of the Grounds for Removal from Office only falling under the Grounds for Removal from Office)

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 13, and 10-26, and 27 of Eul evidence Nos. 5, 10-27, the plaintiff ordered Non-party P, who was admitted to the head of a school department at the time of February 2010, to change the Do governor's subjects into philosophical subjects among the time table of 2010, and the above P is 2010.

3. 2. The Plaintiff’s presentation of the revised time table at a teachers’ meeting was refused to hold a A.M. on the same day, and the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she was performing his/her duties as the principal by participating in the re-school ceremony and the entrance ceremony, which was conducted after the appointment of the principal acting as the principal, as the principal. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was appointed as the principal acting as the principal acting as the principal of the school on February 18, 2010, after the Plaintiff served as the head of the administrative office and became vacant.

The fact that he/she resigns from the office of administration and is appointed as a teacher or an acting person for the principal on March 1, 2010, but he/she was suspended from performing his/her duties on March 8, 2010 shall be as seen earlier.

According to the above facts, the facts of the above disposition are more than two years of the statute of limitations. In addition, in light of the fact that the plaintiff was acting as the principal acting as the principal in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors at the time of ordering the above P to change the time table, and the subsequent announcement of the time table was made after the plaintiff was appointed as the principal acting as the principal, and before the suspension of his/her duties was made, the plaintiff's above time table change order cannot be readily concluded as a mere act as the chief of the office of administration, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise

B) Teachers Acting as principal and his return to his office (Article 2 of the Grounds for Removal)

According to the statement Nos. 10-1, 2, and 28 of the evidence Nos. 10-1, 3, and 28, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff takes office as the principal acting for the board of directors on April 15, 2010, 59 of the teacher's 68 and 53 of the 68 teacher's 68 teacher's 68 teacher's s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s s

C) An honorary position of school based on inquiries about the qualifications of directors at the Office of Education (Article 6 of the Grounds for Removal from Office)

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 9 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff attended the meeting of the board of directors of the defendant corporation held on February 28, 201 to the Supreme Court as of March 28, 201, which was held on February 2011, and in relation to the fact that Q, a judge, attended the meeting of the board of directors of the defendant corporation held on February 28, 201, and in relation to the exercise of voting rights, "B asked about the qualifications of directors who exercise voting rights at the board of directors without obtaining concurrent permission," and the Supreme Court ethical audit office of the Supreme Court on March 31, 2011 has no authority to interpret legal issues among private persons."

D) Defamation of a candidate for an open director (Ground of removal from office No. 9)

The board of directors of defendant corporation, according to the whole purport of Eul evidence No. 16 and arguments, shall be May 201.

26. The fact that the board of directors for the appointment of open directors is held to appoint Nonparty R as an open director. The Plaintiff attended the meeting of the above board of directors as an executive secretary and distributed personal data, such as the said R, recommended by the open board of directors recommendation committee. Among the distribution data, “Before the cancellation - The Educ Cooperative Association is an organization? The Educ Cooperative Association is an organization? The inducement of the title “(4. 19 mental retirement?” and “4. 19 mental retirement? We can find the fact that the news of the title “I” was included. However, it is difficult to view that the above recognition alone directly damaged the reputation of the candidate of the open board of directors or injured school honor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

E) Violation of the duty to report business trips, etc. (Article 11 of the Grounds for Removal from Office)

3) According to the facts found in Section A, the Plaintiff is recognized as having not obtained the approval of the principal after March 11, 201, or having conducted once without reporting to the principal, five times without permission, four times without permission, five times without permission, and two times without permission, and one time without permission, respectively. This constitutes a ground for dismissal from position under Articles 82 and 44(2)1 of the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Corporation as it falls under the case of unfaithful work attitude and thus falls under the ground for dismissal from position under Article 82 and Article 44(2)1 of the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Corporation (the ground for dismissal from position of this case only falls under the ground for dismissal from position).

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 17 through 19, Eul evidence Nos. 10-1 through 3, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff received an order from the head of a school to obtain prior approval at the time of departure from the school, but he/she did not obtain the principal's approval for a total of 18 times from November 10 to February 7, 2012 or without filing a report on 18 times as follows. This constitutes a violation of his/her duties or a failure to perform his/her duties, and thus constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 83 of the articles of incorporation of each defendant corporation, Article 61 (1) 2 of the Private School Act.

B) Participating in school affairs and school affairs (Paragraph 2 of the Grounds for Dismissal)

According to the purport of the entire arguments and arguments set forth in Nos. 10-1, 2, and 4-2 of the evidence Nos. 10-10, the Plaintiff.

12. The fact that the Korean language and S, a fixed-term teacher, are urged to fill out a written statement, holding the reasons why they did not give an open class in the form of the head of the administrative office, and that S, a party to S and the Korean language teacher and teachers in the Republic of Korea have placed an action against the head of the administrative office’s unjust involvement in the school affairs and school affairs. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff is acknowledged as constituting an act that goes against Article 83(4) and (5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and Article 20(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, clearly distinguishings the authority of the teachers and the administrative staff in charge of the administrative affairs and other affairs of the school, and the head of the administrative office that is the cause of the general service, as a teacher in general service, was unable to participate in the school affairs and school affairs and forced the teacher to engage in the affairs without any obligation. Accordingly, this constitutes an act that goes against this part of the general staff, an act that violates his duty, or an act that damages the dignity of the general staff.

C) Accounting order (Paragraph 3 of the Grounds for Dismissal)

According to the evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, 5, 6 through 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 13, each of the above evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, 5, 6 through 14, and Eul's evidence Nos. 10-13, in order to prevent the plaintiff's failure to resign from his office, the above H was appointed as an acting director for the administrative affairs on March 28, 2010. According to Article 58-1 and 58-2 of the Accounting Rules of Private School, the full-time officer shall hand over his office to the successor within five days from the date of issuance without changing the office's seal No. 10-1, 2, 2010 for each bank transaction without changing the office's seal No. 1, 2, 5, 6 through 14, and 13, and the plaintiff's failure to hand over his office No. 1, 2010 to the above office's office chief of the administrative affairs.

4) Sub-decisions

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if it is sufficient to recognize the validity of each of the instant dispositions solely on the grounds that some of the grounds for the removal from position and dismissal are not recognized, the recognition of such dispositions is not illegal.

Of the 12 grounds for the removal from office, the total sum of 6 reasons for the removal from office are not recognized, and only the rest of 6 reasons are recognized, and the total sum of 5 and 10 reasons for the removal from office are not recognized, and only the rest of 8 reasons are recognized as grounds for the removal from office. However, in light of the fact that the remaining reasons for the removal from office are all the grounds for the removal from office, it is not illegal even if they maintain each of the above reasons solely on the basis of the above recognized reasons.

C. Whether the removal from position or dismissal of the instant case deviates from or abused the discretion

1) Legal principles

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to the disciplinary measure who is a school employee under the Private School Act, the person subject to the disciplinary measure is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary power has considerably lost validity under the generally accepted social norms, it may be deemed unlawful. If a disciplinary measure against a school employee has considerably lost validity under the generally accepted social norms, it may be deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure are clearly unreasonable objectively in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the purpose to achieve the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures. Even if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measures is left at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measures, it is against the public interest principle that should exercise the authority to take disciplinary measures for the public interest, or is generally considered as a disciplinary reason, compared to the degree of flight, and thus, it shall be recognized that the disciplinary measure has violated the principle of proportionality or general application of the same degree without justifiable or reasonable reason.

In addition, whether it is impossible to continue the employment relationship with the worker in question under social norms shall be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances such as the purpose and nature of the employer, conditions of the workplace, status of the worker in question and contents of duties, motive and background of the act of misconduct, influence on the company's business order such as the risk of disturbing the corporate deceptive order, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13053, Apr. 25, 1995) and the previous attitude of work, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du2611, Aug. 20, 199). And even between those who committed the same degree of misconduct, it cannot be regarded as arbitrary discrimination based on the nature of the case, and thus, it does not go against the principle of equality or equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du2611, Apr. 25, 195).

The following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., ① the Plaintiff, as the head of the administrative office, intends to influence his/her duties, such as the appointment of the principal or the management of school affairs, by taking advantage of the special status of the founder of the school, which is the third South of his/her duties. ② The Plaintiff explicitly refused and failed to comply with the instructions given by his/her superior, his/her principal and the president, and thereby, failed to employ fixed-term teachers, to hold

The important duties of the defendant corporation are not normally performed, ③ the plaintiff does not merely neglect or neglect the duties of the board of directors and the president, and further constitutes a school principal recommendation committee without any legal basis to participate in the appointment of the principal who is clearly entitled to the authority of the board of directors and the president. The plaintiff voluntarily selected the principal by inserting the notice to the office of education and the Internet website. This constitutes a serious act of interference with the powers of the board of directors and the president, which is a core institution of the defendant corporation, and ④ The plaintiff is in the principal position in charge of the school administrative affairs, and has neglected his duty to report intentionally. This act of interference constitutes "an act of interference under Article 15 of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Educational Officials applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 83(1) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, and Article 2 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials, etc., which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 83(1) of the articles of incorporation of the corporation, and the plaintiff's act of interference continues relatively long-term, and the plaintiff's act is more likely to return to the defendant's labor relationship.

Accordingly, each of the above dispositions cannot be deemed to be cases where the content of the dispositions can be objectively and objectively deemed to be unfair, and each of the above dispositions cannot be deemed to have exceeded or abused discretionary authority (as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has served in good faith for about 17 years and has not been subject to disciplinary action once during that period, and the Defendant immediately issued a heavy disciplinary measure called dismissal disposition without giving prior warning or attention to the Plaintiff’s misconduct, but the above circumstances alone cannot be deemed to have exceeded or abused discretionary authority).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the removal from position and removal from office of this case is without merit, and the claim for wages based on the premise of objection is without merit, and all of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Sung-hoon

Judges Song Chang-chul

Judges Gyeong-tae

1) In convening the board of directors, each director shall notify each director of the purpose of the meeting at least seven days before the meeting.

2) As seen earlier, the grounds for removal from office under Articles 82 and 44(2)1 of the Articles of Incorporation of Defendant Corporation are the grounds for removal from office under Article 83 of the Articles of Incorporation of Defendant Corporation and the Private School

Article 61 (1) 2 and Article 61 (1) 2 of the Private School Act are overlapped. Thus, the relevant grounds for disposition are related to Article 61 (1) 2 of the Private School Act.

If there is any matter, it shall be determined only on whether it falls under the grounds for disciplinary action.

3) Whether the grounds for such dismissal disposition were disposed of on the grounds that did not indicate the reasons for the resolution, the General Staff Disciplinary Committee as seen earlier.

See procedural defect in a disciplinary resolution.

A person shall be appointed.