logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.04.13 2014구합15115
인권교육수강등권고결정취소
Text

1. As to the case of sexual harassment between the Plaintiff, B, and C, etc. on May 22, 2014, the Defendant committed 13 petitions081700, respectively.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was discharged on July 24, 2014 from office at D University established in 1998 by Jeonnam-do (hereinafter “instant University”) as E and professor since 209.

B. The 12 petitioners, B, etc. (hereinafter “the instant petitioners”) filed a petition with the Defendant to the effect that “the Plaintiff was subject to sexual harassment for several years,” on October 25, 2013, while attending the pertinent university E and 3 years.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant petition”). C.

Accordingly, on May 22, 2014, on the premise that the following facts are recognized by the Defendant’s investigation of the Plaintiff, the Defendant determined that the act constitutes sexual harassment under Article 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the former National Human Rights Commission of Korea Act (amended by Act No. 14028, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) and determined that the act constitutes sexual harassment under Article 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the former National Human Rights Commission Act (amended by Act No. 14028, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) and subsequently, the former Do governor thoroughly supervised the management and supervision of the D University so that the act of sexual harassment by professors can not be repeated and the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff can be properly implemented, ② the president of the D University shall take heavy disciplinary measures against the Plaintiff

(hereinafter “the instant recommendation”). The facts of recognition (hereinafter “the instant act”) are as follows: (a) each act constitutes “the instant act”; and (b) each act constitutes “the instant act”, “the instant act of taking, etc.,” and “the instant speech”; (c) the Plaintiff repeatedly applied a malicious method to the instant petitioners during the class hours in 201 and 2012, or proposed to remove the said petitioners from defects, such as hand, arms, arms, etc., of the instant petitioners; and (d) the said petitioners talk together with the instant petitioners in the instant university, including a corridor during the class hours; and (e) the said petitioners frequently moved together with the instant petitioners, such as a hallway, etc.; and (e) their body, such as arms, shoulder, etc.

arrow