The propriety of the disposition of removal from position of a teacher in a national school on the ground of lag, unauthorized removal from position, etc.

On March 1, 1981, when the Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher in charge of a national school, up to 19 times each year and 10 times each year and without permission from December 1, 198, and when there are several meetings of the same school year and there are less than the book of post-school in order to immediately return home, the Defendant’s disposition of removal from position against the Plaintiff is legitimate within the scope of discretion, since the Plaintiff lacks job performance as a public educational official, and the performance record is extremely poor.

Article 58-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 73-2 of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in Seoul Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu283 delivered on March 16, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling the evidences, rejected the facts that the plaintiff was sent to the national school located in Seoul as of March 1, 1981 and thereafter included the second grade of the above school, and 10 times without permission from March 3 to October of the same year, and 10 times from December of the same year, such as leaving the school without permission from the head of the above school, and the plaintiff did not attend the above principal's order from November of the same year and did not attend the above principal's meeting several times on several occasions. On June 16:40 of the same year, the court below rejected the evidence that the plaintiff exceeded the post-school's post-school's duty of care and work performance was extremely insufficient, and thus, the plaintiff violated the rules of evidence and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's dismissal from office and the records, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts and the decision of the court below, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)