logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.08.16 2018구합89435
해임처분취소청구기각결정취소
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 disposition;

A. On March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff is a person newly appointed as a C University International Trade and assistant professor, which was established and operated by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

B. On May 9, 2018, the president of the Cuniversity requested a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff committed each misconduct listed in the list of disciplinary reasons attached hereto, following a resolution by the teachers’ personnel committee. On May 11, 2018, the Intervenor requested a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on May 11, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct constitutes a violation of Article 61(1)1 and 3 of the Private School Act, Article 56(1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of C University Teachers, Article 1 and 3 of the C University’s Ethical Principles, Article 12(1)1, 3, and 4 of the C University Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee Regulations, following a resolution by the board of directors.

Accordingly, on June 8, 2018, the above teachers' disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the plaintiff by taking all the rest of the acts of misconduct except the acts of misconduct listed in the table of disciplinary reasons in attached Table 10, 23, 26, 33, 34, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, and 56 as grounds for disciplinary action.

C. On June 12, 2018, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff according to the resolution of the said teachers’ disciplinary committee.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition for review with the Defendant against the Intervenor seeking the revocation of the said disposition. Accordingly, on September 5, 2018, the Defendant determined that the instant disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s acts overlap with some of the grounds for disciplinary actions, as seen above, 10, 23, 26, 33, 34, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 55, and 56, 16, 32, 38 through 40, 46, and 52, 27, 29, 36, 44, 48, 48, and 50 (50) subordinate to the grounds for disciplinary actions, excluding the acts of misconduct listed in the list of disciplinary reasons attached hereto.

arrow