beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 29, 1989, the Plaintiff was appointed as a professor at the University C and a full-time lecturer at the University C and the University C on March 29, 1989, and was in office as C (former IT C) from April 1, 200.
B. From September 15, 2014 to October 17, 2014, the Board of Audit and Inspection of the instant misconduct and request for disciplinary action of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection requested a heavy disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, as shown in attached Table 1, registered a person employed by a private company and being paid labor costs from a company affiliated with the private company as a participating researcher, was unfairly registered as a participating researcher, received research expenses, and used them for stock investment on the ground that “the instant misconduct” was “the instant misconduct” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant misconduct”).
C. On July 20, 2015, the General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials at B University (hereinafter the Defendant’s Disposition No. 1) decided to dismiss the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1)2 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 4(1)1 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action on Public Educational Officials (hereinafter the “instant Disposition”) on the ground that the instant misconduct constituted a violation of Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, and that it constitutes “other breach of good faith” of the Rules on Disciplinary Action on Public Educational Officials’ Disciplinary Action, etc., and that “the degree of criticism is severe and intentional,” and that “the Plaintiff’s public matters (the Presidential Service Medal of October 14, 2005), during the Plaintiff’s employment, decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on August 17, 2015 pursuant to the above Decision.
On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff’s appeal procedure filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers, but the Appeal Commission for Teachers dismissed the petition on November 11, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 6, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).