logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2019.10.16 2019나22167
해임처분 무효확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Article 61(1) and Article 61(1) of the Private School Act (Grounds and Types of Disciplinary Action) (1) of the same Act provides that if a teacher of a private school falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the person who has the authority to appoint the teacher concerned shall request a resolution of disciplinary action and take a disciplinary action according to the result of a resolution of disciplinary action, on the grounds that the court below No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance, “B dismissed the plaintiff” of No. 10 under the sentence No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance.

1. Where he performs an act contrary to the teacher's principal portion in violation of this Act and other education-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

2. When he violates or neglects his duties;

3. Disciplinary reasons set forth in the following subparagraphs where he/she has committed an act detrimental to the dignity of a teacher regardless of whether he/she is on or off duty.

The plaintiff was dismissed due to the reason that "the plaintiff was dismissed."

Ro-ro, the first instance of the same page was declared as follows.

Next, "(The grounds for the disciplinary action of the victim D are the grounds for the disciplinary action of the No. 1-2 or 4, the grounds for the disciplinary action of the victim E, the grounds for the disciplinary action of the No. 3-1 or 5, and the third action of the No. 3."

Next, “(the grounds for the dismissal of this case are not recognized in both the grounds for the dismissal of this case)” was declared as follows.

Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The following grounds for disciplinary action are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of only the grounds for disciplinary action specified in Article 1-2 through 4 against the victim D and only the grounds for disciplinary action specified in Article 3-1 through 5 against the victim E. As such, the victim D (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action”) is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. On December 17, 2014, the victim D (hereinafter “the victim”) who was a male-child-gu in a computer department office on December 17, 2014, together with the male-child-gu in the above victim’s department office “(s) is changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be changed to be

arrow