logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.11 2016가합100998
재임용거부무효확인 등 청구의 소
Text

1. Among the plaintiffs' lawsuits in this case, the defendant's rejection of reappointment as of December 30, 2015 against the plaintiffs and June 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The parties concerned 1) The Defendant is a school foundation operating H University. On September 2003, the Plaintiff A was appointed as a full-time professor or assistant professor at H University and was employed on October 2009. The Plaintiff B was appointed as a full-time professor at H University on September 2003, and was promoted to the associate professor at H University on October 2009. The Plaintiff C was appointed as a full-time professor at H University’s tourist conference, and was employed on April 2012 as a full-time professor at H University’s tourist conference, and was employed on March 2, 2006, and the Plaintiff D was employed as a full-time lecturer at H University’s university and served on March 2, 2013 and served as a full-time professor at H University’s respective forest science and at the same time on March 2, 2006, and the Plaintiffs were appointed as a full-time professor at H University’s respective forest science and at the same time on October 2013.

B. On December 11, 2015, the Defendant issued the first teachers’ personnel committee on December 11, 2015, and the second teachers’ personnel committee on December 18, 2015, to review whether the Plaintiffs meet the criteria for reappointment. On December 30, 2015, the president of HH University notified the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs are disqualified for reappointment. 2) Thereafter, the Defendant’s board of directors decided on January 15, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition rejecting reappointment”), and on January 22, 2016, the principal of HH University teachers notified the Plaintiffs of the dismissal from reappointment based on the rejection of reappointment.

C. On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the disposition rejecting the reappointment of the instant case and filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission against the revocation of the disposition rejecting the reappointment of the instant case.

arrow