logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2017.10.26 2017가합100975
파면처분무효확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an educational foundation operating a high-tech college and a high-tech college’s uniform hospital, and the Plaintiff was working as B and professor at a high-tech college operated by the Defendant from March 2007.

1) The Plaintiff who violated the duty of integrity and dignity as a teacher due to taking property in breach of trust is a stock company C (hereinafter “C”) from August 2014 to April 2016.

2) Upon the receipt of an illegal solicitation from D to the effect that “The supply volume of medicines, such as E, supplied in Company C, may be increased by continuous prescriptions,” the Plaintiff, as a teacher, is teaching students up to 23.45 million won in cash, and the Plaintiff, as a professor, receives cash provided over 21 times for the purpose of promoting sales in exchange for an illegal solicitation from a pharmaceutical dealer, thereby seriously impairing the morality of the Plaintiff as a professor.

B. On December 8, 2016, the Defendant’s teachers’ disciplinary committee decided that the Plaintiff constituted grounds for removal under the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, the Public Educational Officials Act, the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials, and the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Public Educational Officials; the Private School Act, the State Public Officials Act, the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, and the Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials; accordingly, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on December 13, 2016 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the removal of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) According to Article 64 of the Private School Act, where a cause for disciplinary action exists for a private school teacher, a full investigation shall be conducted in advance, and then a resolution on disciplinary action shall be requested to the teachers' disciplinary committee, and Article 65 (1)

arrow