beta
Text
1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the demotion and the dismissal disposition shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a social welfare foundation that establishes and operates a private school and a special school, and the Plaintiff was demoted to ordinary teachers on January 18, 201 while serving as the principal of C Schools, and was dismissed on June 24, 2013.
B. The Gyeonggi-do Office of Education requested the Defendant to take a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the prohibition of his/her escape from the workplace and the grounds for the disciplinary measure of unjust execution of business promotion expenses have been discovered with respect to the violation of the prohibition of his/her escape from the workplace, and the Defendant to take a caution against the unjust execution of business promotion expenses.
(2) On January 14, 2011, the Defendant opened a disciplinary committee composed of the chairman D, members E, E, F, G, H, H, and I, and took the disposition of demotion and caution against the Plaintiff for the reason of the act as indicated in the Plaintiff’s table below, and notified the Plaintiff on January 18, 201.
(1) The grounds for the disciplinary action of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant demotion”) include the permission of the head of the agency to which the teacher belongs, and the permission of the head of the agency to which the teacher belongs is required to hold concurrent offices, and the outside lecture, the outside lecture, and the outside lecture, the outside lecture, the outside lecture, and the outside lecture of three universities (J colleges, K colleges, and L University) from 2007 to 2010 to 2010 to the outside lecture, and the defendant representative director was not required to hold concurrent offices except 1 semester in 2010, and there was no reason for the outside lecture, the outside lecture, the outside lecture, the early leave, or the annual leave, etc. caused interference with the school affairs due to the outside lecture. The pertinent action was conducted by the public official, Article 55 of the Private School Act, Articles 58 and 64 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 26 of the State Public Officials Service Regulations, and Article 26 of the Rules related to the Disciplinary Action related to Public Officials Act.