2010Guhap1161 Demanding revocation of revocation of dismissal, etc.

1. door - (68 -1)

Chuncheon City 13 complex apartment units, Dong-gu 13

2. LOBE - (63 -1)

Chuncheon apartment club in Chuncheon

3. Kim - (71 1)

Cheongcheon-si apartment unit;

4. Prostitution (59.11 -10)

Won-si 1 Dong

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant]

Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education

Law Firm Han-han, Attorney Han-soo

Attorney Park Jong-soo et al.

June 22, 2012

July 20, 2012

1. The Defendant’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff’s door on December 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the plaintiff, Kim & Yoon are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff’s door and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff’s music, Kim, and Yoon and the Defendant is borne by the said Plaintiffs, respectively.

Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 of December 1, 2009 and the defendant revoked each two-month of suspension from office against the plaintiff's worship, Kim, and Yoon on December 1, 2009 (the "written complaint on November 23, 2009" seems to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, while the Plaintiff’s door was appointed as a teacher and working for an elementary school on March 25, 1991, the head of the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Teachers’ Union”) takes charge of the branch office of the Korean Teachers’ Union while he was on full-time leave of absence from office from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. The Plaintiff’s letter was appointed as a teacher on March 1, 2001 and served at the elementary school (branch) while he was on full-time leave of absence from office from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010, while he was on full-time leave of absence from office from March 1, 2009 to from March 15, 2000 to the Head of the Korean Teachers’ Union, who was on full-time leave of absence from office from March 1, 2018.

B. On December 1, 2009, the defendant violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 57 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), Article 63 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), Article 66 (Prohibition of Collective Act), Article 3 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Members of the Union, due to grounds for disciplinary action as set forth below, and thus dismissed the plaintiff's sentence against the plaintiff, the dismissal of the plaintiff, the assignment of the plaintiff, Kim, and the disciplinary action against the plaintiff for two months of full-time position (hereinafter referred to as "each disciplinary action of this case").

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Around December 24, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for each appeal review. However, the Teachers’ Appeal Committee dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ petition for appeal review on March 16, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

A) The term “regular activities prohibited under Article 3 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers’ Unions” does not mean the entirety of political expression, but means activities supporting or opposing a specific political party or person for the purpose of acquiring power in an election. The assembly does not constitute an assembly of government officials.

B) The Assembly and Demonstration Act’s declaration is not a violation of the law, but a violation of the public interest by expressing concerns about the crisis of democracy and education caused by the present government and educational authorities, and demanding correction thereof. Thus, it cannot be deemed that “collective act prohibited under Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act” was committed.

C) Since the assembly and demonstration was not related to the duties of teachers, the instructions of the principal, etc. do not have a duty to obey because they are not related to the duties of teachers, and the instructions themselves are unlawful as they violate the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, and therefore, they do not have a duty to comply with the orders, and therefore, they are not an act of impairing the dignity as a teacher, but rather an act of informing the plaintiffs that they are in the protection of conscience as educators

2) improper determination of disciplinary action

Even if there are grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs, each of the instant disciplinary action is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the scope of discretion in violation of the principle of proportionality.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are recognized in full view of the aforementioned evidence and each statement of Nos. 1 through 24 (including the number of branch numbers) of the evidence mentioned above and the whole purport of the pleading.

1) On June 9, 2009, the Presidential Decree held a Central Execution Committee for the Assembly and decided to hold a “six-month teachers’ meeting with the contents of the present government’s policy and demanding the government reform.” The Assembly and Demonstration announced the assembly and demonstration with the method of distributing the draft in advance, and the organization of the branch, sub-branch, sub-branch, sub-branch, and sub-branch, which are nationwide, with the purpose of systematically confirming the name of the teachers who participated in the assembly and demonstration, and announced the assembly and demonstration under the joint signature of the participating teachers through the media. The Assembly and Demonstration decided to publish the list of teachers who participated in the assembly and demonstration in the “the desire for education,” which is the form of a pre-confluence.

2) Accordingly, on June 11, 2009, the Jeon school branch of the Jeon school branch of the Assembly was called "request for the cooperation with signatures relating to the private sector in the name of the president of the Jeon school branch of the Assembly on June 11, 2009" and the democratic era in June 22, 1987 was set aside, and human rights are seriously flexible. Accordingly, the Jeon school branch of the Assembly is proceeding with the Assembly to protect the precious value of the democratic resistance. After June 1, 2009, the reporter is expected to be made public through the “AX”, which is the news materials and the front school branch of the Assembly. The reporter is entitled to request for the cooperation with signatures, and the signature is sent to the FAX by June 17, 2009. The signature paper will be transmitted to the Jeon school branch of the Assembly by means of the FAX.

It is possible to receive a document on the website of the branch.In addition, I prepared a public document stating "one copy of the Assembly and Demonstration, one copy of the signature paper," and one copy of the signature paper, and sent it by facsimile to the head of each division of the Jeon school branch of the Jeon school branch. On June 12, 2009, the signatory sent the document to the column of the website of the Jeon school branch of the Jeon school branch and sent it by facsimile. On June 12, 2009, the signatory sent the document to the district facsimile and sent the file of the signature book to the Jeon school branch, and reported it to the Jeon school branch.

3) On June 17, 2009, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology sent to each Si/Do Office of Education an official letter requesting the participants in the assembly and demonstration. On the same day, the Defendant sent official letter (school teachers policy - 8430) with the above contents to regional office of education and high school.

4) On June 18, 2009, Jeon Jong-chul opened a press conference in front of the So-gu Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul and announced the first time under the name of 'the 16,171 teachers', and on June 22, 2009, the name of 17,170 signator was published in the ‘the desire for education'. The main contents of this is the abuse of public power to ensure that the freedom of democracy, assembly, expression, and association was seriously damaged, and the old age of government mobilization of public power for political purposes is restored. The government's announcement of the democratic government's freedom of expression and the democratic government's freedom of expression, such as the removal of the public power, and the strengthening of the democratic government's freedom of expression and the democratic government's freedom of expression and the democratic government's freedom of expression and the democratic government's freedom of expression, such as the removal of the public power. The government's public power's strong development of culture and culture, which has been faced with the crisis of culture.

5) In the process of the First Declaration of the Assembly and Demonstration as mentioned above, the first Declaration, which is the head of the Jeon school branch, participated in the process of determining the policy of the Jeon school support by attending the Central Execution Committee as the central executive member, which is qualified as the head of the Jeon school branch. After witnessing this, the Plaintiff Yoon-, who was the head of the Jeon school branch, had been in contact with the Plaintiff Kim, Kim, the head of the policy office of the branch office of the Jeon school branch, and the Plaintiff Lee -, etc., who was the head of the branch office of the Jeon school branch, recommended the members of the branch office to participate in the assembly and demonstration through wire call, text message, e-mail, etc., and sent them to the Central Headquarters by confirming and gathering their intent to participate in the assembly and demonstration, the Plaintiff, the head of the Jeon school branch office of the Jeon school support branch, who is the head of the central headquarters, led the teachers of the Jeon school support branch (310 participants), who were directly signing all the Plaintiffs.

6) The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology: (a) accused all the executives of the First Declaration to the prosecution; and (b) requested that the Office of Education take a heavy disciplinary measure; (c) On June 28, 2009, the First Declaration was first issued, the former Department of Education, Science and Technology: (a) converting the former Chief of the Police Agency into the formation of the strike headquarters; and (b) on June 29, 2009, the Seoul Jongno-gu’s office held a briefing session with the form of the press conference and sent the letter to the government room; and (d) on July 5, 2009, the public officials and teachers were jointly and severally urged to hold a national teachers’ meeting among the members with three thousand or more members participating in the First Declaration, and (e) from June 29, 2009 to July 15, 2009, 300 or more teachers participated in the assembly, and (e) the Government and teachers were urged to participate in the assembly.

7) Accordingly, on July 2, 2009, the Jeon school branch posted the “Second Declaration” on the website of the Jeon school branch and posted it on July 2, 2009, and the place of signature by district facsimile until July 14, 2009.

On July 4, 2009, the Assembly of the Republic of Korea requested the sending of the report, posted the data collection of the Assembly meeting under the name of the branch of the branch, and reported this to the former Telecommunication Headquarters by gathering the personnel and list of the dispatched sign teachers.

8) On July 1, 2009, the Defendant sent to a regional office of education and high school a public official’s signature and announcement that violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Public Officials, and thus, ordered teachers not to participate in the secondary and sign-up campaign by sending a public official’s official text (School Teachers’ Policy-9435) with the content of a heavy disciplinary measure, and ordered teachers not to participate in the second and sign-up campaign. On July 15, 2009, the Defendant directed the regional office of education and high school of education and the district office of education and the state office of education to a strict plan to take measures in accordance with the law and principles (School Teachers’ Policy-10308).

9) On July 19, 2009, Jeon Jong-chul announced the Second Declaration in the name of "Seoul Scenic, 1,000 and 28,634 teachers," and on the same day, notified the Internet Homebook 017 [www.] (New.). The main contents of the Declaration are "the freedom of speech and expression to the school building of the citizen is the fundamental rights." The military Doctrine did not go beyond the open history of the past military Doctrine, which did not go beyond the deep history, and the deep decentralization and shock of the private high school." It is necessary to guarantee teachers' participation in the private high school and to take disciplinary measures against teachers, such as the withdrawal of their right to education and the withdrawal of their freedom of expression and the withdrawal of their right to freedom of expression. It is necessary to guarantee the freedom of expression and the removal of the basic policy for democratic abuse of the public authority.

10) Following the Second Declaration was held as a prior event of 'the Second Declaration' with the members of the Democratic Labor Party, this Council member, this Council member, the Democratic Party, the chairman of the Labor Union Federation, the former chairman of the Labor Union Federation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Labor Union Federation'), etc. on July 19, 19, the participants held 'the teachers', 'the public officials' 'the Second Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the Declaration', 'the Second Declaration', 'the government'.

11) 연이어 전교조는 17:00부터 19:00까지 열린 '7. 19. 민주회복·민생살리기 제2 차 범국민대회'에도 참가하였고, 한국진보연대 이 공동대표는 "반 MB전선을 만들 어 똘똘 뭉쳐 투쟁해 나가자"라고 연설하고, 민노총 임 - 위원장은 "우리 노동자들은 쌍용차 공권력 투입과 미디어법 강행처리시 전면 파업에 돌입할 것이다"라고 연설을 하였으며, 최 전국언론노조위원장은 "언론악밥 폐지를 위해 MB정권에 맞서 끝까 지 투쟁할 것이다"라는 연설을 하고, 민주당 송 의원은 "언론은 민주주의의 생명이 다. 미디어법은 절대로 통과되어서는 안 된다"라고 연설을 하고, 강 - 민노당 의원은 " 현 정부는 서민정부를 죽이고 있다"라고 연설을 하였으며, 창조한국당 유 - 의원은 "현 정부와 한판 붙어서 이 지구상에서 영원히 격리시키자"라고 연설을 하는 등 집회 참가자들은 현 정부의 주요 정책을 비판하고 현 정부를 상대로 투쟁하자는 취지의 정 치적 발언을 하였고, 집회참가자들도 "언론악법 철회하고 언론자유 보장하자! 비정규직 다 죽는다, 정규직화 시행하라! 혈세낭비 환경파괴 4대강 죽이기 중단하라! 시국선언 탄압 말고 표현의 자유 보장하라!" 는 구호를 제창하였다.

12) In the process of the Second Declaration, the Plaintiff’s text and Ma- Kim et al. led the participation of the local teachers, and reported it to the Jeon school assistant headquarters by gathering the number and list of the signers. The Plaintiff Ma-ap was present as a witness at the 361 Provisional Central Execution Committee, or was in charge of the affairs of the previous school assistant team. In addition, all the Plaintiffs participated directly in the said event held at the Seoul Central Committee on July 19, 2009 with the members of the said branch and the members of the association.

13) The plaintiffs were indicted or summaryed for violating the State Public Officials Act on the ground that they participated in the First and Second Declarations as mentioned above (hereinafter “the Assembly Declarations”). The plaintiffs were convicted of all facts charged from the violation of the State Public Officials Act on January 11, 201, Chuncheon District Court (2009No293, 515, 200, 2500, 1,500 won, 200 won, 200, 2000 won, 200 won, 200 won, 200 won, 203, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 300, 3000 won, 30,000 won, 30,000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000 won, 20,000,000 won, 213,2021,21.

D. Determination

1) Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist

A) As to the violation of Article 3 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers’ Unions

In light of the above facts, the Assembly report of this case criticizes the present government's political power as an anti- democratic power corresponding to the past military regime, and demands the government's reform demand, suspension and promotion of specific policies, suspension of amendment of the Media Act, and removal of suspicions on the promotion of canal in the Korean Peninsula, which are legally stipulated in the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions (amended by Act No. 10132, Mar. 17, 2010; hereinafter referred to as "the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions"), and it is irrelevant to the teachers' labor union activities which are legally stipulated in the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions, etc. of the Korean Peninsula, and it is not immediately related to the assembly of this case's fundamental political opinion with a specific political party or a specific political force, and thus, it is prohibited that the government's political activities are prohibited from infringing upon the right of education of the plaintiffs, such as the right of education of the plaintiffs.

B) As to the violation of Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act

In the case of teachers who are public officials, freedom of political expression is guaranteed, but in light of the constitutional spirit that declares the political neutrality of public officials and the political neutrality of education and the purport of relevant statutes, the freedom of political expression is bound to be limited within a certain scope. This is the limit to assume teachers who are public officials, whose status is guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, in a case where the political expressive act of teachers, who are public officials, is conducted in a large scale and collectively, taking into account the ripple effects on educational sites and society, evaluation is required. Therefore, inasmuch as the expression of opinion by teachers, who are public officials, constitutes a specific political act prohibited against public officials by individual Acts, such as the State Public Officials Act or the Election of Public Officials Act, or an act of directly exposing support or opposition to a specific political party or political force, it is difficult to view that such act has reached the degree of direct harm that may infringe on the fixed value of teachers who are public officials, such as an act that goes beyond this portion of teachers who are public officials, and thus, it constitutes an act of neglecting political neutrality and duty of public officials 16 days.

However, as seen earlier, since the plaintiffs' acts constitute political acts that manifestly reveal political bias or sacrism, such as directly expressing the support for or opposition to a specific political party or political force, it is reasonable to view that such acts go beyond the principal portion of teachers who are public officials and interfere with the discipline of public officials' duties or undermine the essence of public duties, and thus, they constitute "collective acts for purposes other than public duties" prohibited by Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act as constituting "collective acts for purposes other than public duties."

C) As to violation of Articles 56, 57, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act

The duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act is an important duty imposed on a public official as a fundamental duty, and the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act is to faithfully perform his duties with good character and conscience in order to promote the public interest as much as possible and prevent disadvantages. In light of the public official’s duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, the duty to maintain dignity is widely entrusted by the public and work for the whole public, and the public official’s act of demeaning dignity is likely to undermine the public’s trust as well as his/her duties. Thus, the public official requires the public official to lead a sound life not only in relation to his/her duties, but also in his/her private part. The term “defensive” refers to a person who is a sovereign authority, and thus, is a violation of the duty of good faith and the duty of good faith.

In addition, insofar as the acts of the plaintiffs constitute collective acts that affect the duty of loyalty by participating in the assembly and demonstration that are not legally permissible, the supervisor’s instruction or warning that does not participate in such unlawful collective acts is a justifiable official order against the plaintiffs. Thus, each unlawful act committed without complying with such legitimate official order constitutes a violation of the duty of obey as prescribed in Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act.

Therefore, there are grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs.

2) Whether disciplinary action is appropriate

A) In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person who is a public official, the disciplinary measure is placed at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to abuse the authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretion, it may be deemed unlawful. In order for the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure to be taken as an abuse of the authority to take the disciplinary measure, it shall 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 administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure, etc., and even if the exercise of the authority to take the disciplinary measure is left at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure, it shall be deemed that the disciplinary measure is unlawful. 6. 15. 16. 205. 16. 205. 16. 25. 206

B) In light of all the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s appearance and dismissal of the Plaintiff’s door constitutes a very serious disciplinary action against a public official who deprived of his status, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s door directly damaged the students as the full-time officer at the time of the instant assembly and demonstration. The Plaintiff’s door includes the part of the exercise of the freedom of expression; the Plaintiff’s door includes the part of the exercise of the freedom of expression; the Plaintiff’s equity with other disciplinary reasons deprived of his status as a public official and equity with the disciplinary action against other related persons caused by the instant assembly and demonstration; it is reasonable to deem that the dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff’s door is unlawful as it goes beyond the bounds of the discretionary power that has been entrusted to the person having authority over disciplinary action because it has considerably lost validity under the social norms. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s allegation

C) In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the above Plaintiffs were full-time officers of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Division or headquarters, and were led by the Assembly and Labor Relations Adjustment Division or headquarters; (b) there is no adverse effect on the students and the public trust of the teachers who are public officials; and (c) the Plaintiffs were convicted in a criminal trial in relation to the instant case; and (d) the disciplinary action against other related persons due to the Assembly and Labor Relations Act, including the fact that each disciplinary action against the above Plaintiffs is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, and thus, it cannot be deemed that they violated the principle of proportionality, and thus, they exceeded or abused the scope of the disciplinary discretion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Park Sang-gu (Presiding Judge)

Handcarsia

Choi Jin-Jin