2011Nu1602 Revocation of disposition of revocation of dismissal

1. Maximum**

Myeongyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun * Ri

2. Maximum*

Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, Myeon and Ri

3. Stamb*

Jeonnam-gu * face** Paths

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeonnam-do Superintendent of Education

Litigation Performers Materna

Gwangju District Court Decision 2010Guhap3107 Decided August 25, 201

May 3, 2012

May 17, 2012

1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke each disposition of the reduction of salary for one month of suspension from office and three months of reduction to the first highest *, the first highest garment against the plaintiff*, the last*, Park Park * on January 27, 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status and status of the plaintiffs

Plaintiff ** is a state public official who was newly appointed as a teacher of the Dondo Middle School on March 2, 1994 and served in the Mapo Industrial High School on March 1, 2006, and was employed in the Mapo Industrial High School on March 1, 2006, and was appointed as the Secretary General of the NAnam Branch of the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “former Teachers’ Union”). Plaintiff * was a state public official who was newly appointed as the Osan Elementary School on September 1, 1994 and served in the Dong Elementary School on March 1, 2009 from March 1, 2009 and was employed in the above Dong Elementary School on March 1, 2009, and was newly appointed as the head of the above branch, the head of the above branch, the head of the division, and all of the above plaintiffs.

B. First Declarations

(1) On June 9, 2009, at the meeting of the 360th Central Execution Committee held at the office of the former Telecommunication Coordination Headquarters, the Presidential Decree passed a resolution to criticize the present government’s policies and demand the government’s reform.

(2) Accordingly, the Jeonnam Branch, including the Plaintiffs, led the sign-up campaign for teachers, 2,259 from June 10, 2009 to June 18, 2009, and the Plaintiffs directly participated in the signature and sent the list to the Jeonnam Branch.

(3) On June 17, 2009, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology instructed the Office of Education of each Si/Do to refrain from participating in the assembly or demonstration. Accordingly, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology sent to the schools of various levels and regional offices of education the “ thoroughly managing the services related to the teachers’ and the signing campaign”.

(4) From June 18, 2009 to June 11:25, 2009, the First Declaration was announced from around 11:15 to around 11:25 of the same day. The key contents of the First Declaration are 'candlelight demonstration investigation', 'PDmpic investigation', 'crick fire', 'non-regular-regular inter-Korean relations color', and so forth. The Declaration was criticized to the effect that fundamental human rights were seriously damaged due to the abuse of governmental power by the present government, and this is a de facto crisis. This is against the President, the government agency, and the government reform. The press, assembly, human rights, and conscience were thoroughly guaranteed, taking into account the socially weak consideration, the suspension of the media law, the suspension of the movement, and the suspension of competition. It is not directly related to the improvement of working conditions.

C. Second Declarations

(1) Despite the request of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology to refrain from participating in the assembly and demonstration, the first assembly and demonstration was announced as mentioned above among the participation by 20 former teachers such as *, etc., the chairman of the former school *, etc., the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology demanded that the first assembly and demonstration be held on June 26, 2009 ** the above 88 executive members including * the above 88 executive members to the prosecution and take measures such as heavy disciplinary action, etc. against the City/Do Office of Education.

(2) On June 28, 2009, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, which was contrary to the above policy, decided to hold a central enforcement committee at the time of the 361th of June 28, 2009 to conduct the second teachers’ assembly.

(3) On July 2, 2009, Plaintiff *, Jeonnam Branch* also posted the official text and signature form on the homepage of the Jeonnam Branch of Jeon school, Jeonnam branch around July 2, 2009, and the teachers participating in the signature instructed the list to be sent by facsimile of the Jeonnam Branch of Jeon school, and then sent the list that was taken by such means to the Jeonnam Branch of Jeon school.

(4) On July 19, 200 to 14:20 on July 19, 2009, 14:0, 200 members, including **, etc., stated that “I would not interfere with the conscience and practice of teachers who are free from the government that renders it difficult to order martial law,” and “I would be forced to interfere with the pressure of unfair public authority to protect the believers’s right against conscience and freedom of expression as an educator, which is the freedom of conscience and expression.” On the Internet homepage of Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, 1:00, 14:00, 2000, 1:00, 2000, 2000, 1:00, 1;000, 200,000, 1:00,000, 1; 20,000,000).

(d) Details of the disciplinary action;

(1) The defendant, subject to the resolution of the general disciplinary committee of Jeonnam-do, took each of the following actions against the plaintiffs on January 27, 2010, on the ground that such actions constituted disciplinary reasons under Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act in violation of Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Good Faith), 63 (Duty of Maintain Dignity), and 66 (Prohibition of Collective Act) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 3 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions (amended by Act No. 10132, Mar. 17, 2010; hereinafter referred to as "the Act on the Protection of Teachers' Unions").

- Disciplinary Grounds

1. The plaintiffs

Plaintiff L** as the secretary general of the Jeonnam-nam Branch, Plaintiff Choi * as the chairman of the first school in the above branch, the Plaintiff as the first school director of the above branch.

Park* as the chief director of the above site:

A. The First Declarations of Assembly and Demonstration on June 18, 2009* The President of the 11:10 am and the Second Declarations of Assembly and Demonstration around 11:10 am and the Second Declarations of Assembly

The announcement leads 2,259 teachers belonging to the Jeonnam-do Office of Education to conduct a campaign for signing 2,259, and he/she shall also directly sign it.

on June 22, 2009, the list of 17,170 persons who signed the "opportune of education", a senior assistant newsletter.

The article has participated in the publication.

B. On July 19, 2009, the Assembly of Second Declarations issued by the Chairperson at the Seoul plaza* The Assembly of Second Declarations held on July 19, 2009

Along with the signature movement of 4,300 teachers belonging to the Jeonnam-do Office of Education, signed and participated in the signature movement of 4,300 teachers.

J. From 16:00 p.m. to 17:00 p.m. of the same day with other organization officials in the square in Seoul Station.

In this case, the person participated in the instant World War.

2. Plaintiffs Choi *. Park *

In June 28, 2009, at the Provisional Central Execution Committee of Jeon school Cho Jong-sung, 361 on June 28, 2009, democracy protection is for 30,000 teachers.

교사 선언' 서명운동 결의에 전교조 간부로서 2009. 6. 19.(뭘)~2009. 7. 16.(목 )까지 전라남

For signature to teachers belonging to the Do Office of Education on July 2, 2009, an association activity site on the homepage of the Jeonnam-gu Branch of the Jeonnam-do Office of Education.

In order to transmit a signature form to the 236 section 236 and to transmit it by facsimile to the NAY-nam Branch.

The former branch or sub-branch has played a leading role by July 16, 2009, and in accordance with the direction of the former sub-branch by the former sub-branch or sub-branch.

The number and list of participants in the signature campaign in the sign language declaration of 4,300 teachers was considered to be the full school.

(2) On February 3, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal review with the Teachers’ Appeal Committee. However, on May 11, 2010, the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim **, Park *, respectively. However, upon the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff * made a decision to change the disciplinary action for one month of suspension from office into salary 3 months for suspension from office (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s disciplinary action against each of the dispositions in this case”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff * from each of the dispositions in this case refers to three months of reduced salary).

(3) On the other hand, the plaintiffs were indicted for violating the State Public Officials Act on the ground that they engaged in collective acts for the purpose of the activities other than official duties by participating in the instant assembly and the Pacific Games, and were sentenced to a suspended sentence on the amount of a fine of KRW 500,000 on May 14, 2010 [the judgment of this case hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case") which was sentenced to a suspended sentence on the punishment for the amount of KRW 500,000 won by the Mine District Court Decision 209Ma931, 1358 (Merger), 2010

(4) Although the Plaintiffs appealed to the instant judgment, the Gwangju District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal on December 28, 2010 (Seoul District Court Decision 20101124), the Plaintiffs’ appeal is pending in the final appeal at the present time after filing an appeal with the said appellate court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2. 10 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), Eul Nos. 1 through 19 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers) and the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

(A) Whether Article 3 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions") is violated

Unlike Article 65(1) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 3 of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers prohibits all of the political activities of the Union, but this is a provision prohibiting the political activities of the Union and it is not a provision restricting the individual political freedom of a union member, which is a union member, and thus cannot be subject to disciplinary action against the union member. If Article 3 of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers is extended to prohibit the expression of political opinions of the union member, it is unconstitutional because it infringes on the essential contents

(B) Whether Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act (Prohibition of Collective Action) is violated

Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act refers to collective acts that affect the duty of care for the purpose of violating the public interest. However, since the contents of the Assembly and Demonstration Act do not contain the contents supporting or opposing a specific political force, the participation in the Assembly and Demonstration cannot be deemed as violating the duty of political neutrality of the public official, and the student’s participation in the Assembly and Demonstration does not appear to be in an unreasonable manner. Thus, it does not constitute a violation of the public interest. In this case, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs signed the Assembly and Demonstration, and it is difficult to view that they neglected the duty of care of the public official by infringing upon the student’s right to education by participating in the Assembly and Demonstration. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff participated in the Assembly and Demonstration and Demonstration and did not constitute a collective act for the purpose other than public duties under Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act.

(C) Whether or not the State Public Officials Act has violated Articles 56, 57, and 63 (Duty of Fidelity, Compliance, and Maintenance of Dignity)

The assembly and demonstration of this case is not in violation of the laws and subordinate statutes, and there is no relation with the teacher’s duty. Thus, there is no duty to obey the instruction of the superior, such as the principal, etc. to refrain from participating in the assembly and demonstration of this case, and the participation in the assembly and demonstration of this case does not violate the teacher’s duty of good faith

(B) improper determination of disciplinary action

Even if there were grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs, each of the instant dispositions violated the principle of proportionality or the principle of equality, and abused the discretion of disciplinary action, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s speech and behavior, degree of violation of the laws and regulations by the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the public services offered as teachers for a long time.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) As to the existence of grounds for disciplinary action

(A) As to whether Article 3 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Teachers' Labor Unions Act is violated or not

1) Article 3 of the Teachers' Unions Act provides that "no teachers' union shall engage in any political activity." However, since the above provision prohibits any political activity in the teachers' union (hereinafter referred to as "the teachers' union") and does not state its specific contents, it is problematic whether the assembly or demonstration constitutes a political activity prohibited under the union of teachers' union and whether it constitutes a political activity prohibited under the union of teachers' union of workers.

(ii)Ensuring the political neutrality of officials and education and restricting the freedom of political expression;

A) Article 7(1) of the Constitution provides that “A public official shall be a volunteer to the entire people, shall be responsible to the people,” and Article 7(2) provides that “The status and political neutrality of a public official shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by Act.” Such guarantee of public official’s status and political neutrality is intended to establish a professional public official system by preventing spatching agents and preventing interruption and confusion of state action following the change of government power, thereby maintaining consistency and integrity of performance of official duties, and by allowing all public officials to act as a servant of all specific political parties or specific superiors, not only as to any specific political parties or specific superior, but also as to the public official’s right and interest, thereby contributing to the importance of political stability in terms of national function (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 91Hun-Ga2, Nov. 12, 1992).

B) Article 31(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the autonomy of the university and the autonomy of the state and the autonomy of the state and the autonomy of the state are guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by the Act. The guarantee of the political neutrality of education is derived from the need for education to be led and placed by the students and the educational experts so that education does not affect the outside party's unfair interference (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2001Hun-Ma710, Mar. 25, 2004).

C) Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to all citizens, i.e., the freedom of speech, and such freedom of expression includes the freedom of political expression. However, Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act provides that a State public official shall not engage in the establishment of a political party or other political organization, nor participate in certain political activities, such as solicitation for voting to support or oppose a specific political party or person in an election, and Article 6(1) of the Framework Act on Education provides that “education shall be operated to fulfill its functions according to the original purpose of education.” Article 6(1) of the Framework Act on Education provides that “A teacher shall not be used as a means to spread political, political or personal prejudice,” and Article 14(4) of the same Act provides that “A public official shall not guide or instigate students on the basis of supporting or opposing a particular political party or faction.”

(iii)the meaning of "political activities" in Article 3 of the Teachers' Labor Unions Act;

Unlike the above provisions, Article 3 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act does not have a clear provision on the scope of political activities prohibited under Article 3, but it is reasonable to view that the following circumstances are to prohibit all political activities except for essential activities of teachers' union members, i.e., support for or opposition to a specific political force in an election, and to prohibit all political expression activities conducted to affect the decision-making process without limiting to supporting or opposing a specific political force in an election.

① 감수성과 모방 성, 그리고수욤성이 왕성한 초·중등학교 학생 들에게 교원이 미치는 영향은 매우 크고, 교원의 활동은 근무시간 내외를 불문하고 학생 들의 인격 및 기본생활습관 형성 등에 중요한 영향을 끼치는 잠재적 교육과정의 일부분 이며. 교원의 정치활동은 교육수혜자인 학생의 입장에서는 수업권의 침해로 받아들여질 수 있다는 점에서 현 시점에서는 국민의 교육기본권을 더욱 보장함으로써 얻을 수 있는 공익을 우선시해야 할 것이다(헌법재판소 2004. 3. 25.선고 2001헌마710 전원재판부 결 정 참조),

(2) Although the State Public Officials Act already has a provision prohibiting political activities in the State Public Officials Act, there is no limitation on political activities prohibited by expressing that the provision prohibiting political activities is separately stipulated in the prohibition of political activities, and that the scope of such provision is limited to "political activities". This seems to emphasize the purpose of prohibiting special political activities by taking into account the social functions and responsibilities of preventing educational activities involving teachers and teachers.

③ Historically, when establishing the Teachers' Labor Union Act by making the teachers' union legalizing it, the prohibition of this political activity was stipulated in the Act on the Establishment of the Teachers' Labor Union by stipulating the possibility of infringing the characteristics of teachers' work, the people's learning rights and the political neutrality of education.

(4) The labor union of teachers composed of organizations different from those of teachers who are individuals, is deemed to have the provisions of Article 3 of the Labor Union of Teachers Act in order to prevent any problems that may be caused by such characteristics, because the characteristics of the teachers are able to act systematically on a national scale and as much as the effects of education and society on the whole.

(5) Article 3 of the Act on the Trade-Helping of Teachers does not apply to the scope of personal activities, even though a teacher is a member of the teachers' union, it is not subject to special discrimination compared with other teachers who are not members of the teachers' union.

(6) The purpose and scope of activities of a teacher's labor union under Article 6 (1) of the Teachers' Labor Unions Act shall be construed to be limited to "improvement of economic and social status, such as wages, working conditions, and welfare of the teachers' labor union or its members."

4) Whether the declaration of the present state of this case constitutes a "political activity" under Article 3 of the Teachers' Labor Union Adjustment Act

A) Whether the assembly and demonstration constitutes “political activity” under Article 3 of the Teachers’ Labor Unions Act ought to be determined objectively by comprehensively examining the purpose, background, motive, and specific contents of the assembly and demonstration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4513, May 12, 2006).

B) The Assembly and Demonstration may be seen as a political activity prohibited under Article 3 of the Teachers’ Unions Act, in full view of the contents, time, political situation, and influence of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as follows: (a) the Assembly and Demonstration may be deemed as a political activity prohibited under Article 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as an act of expressing a political intent to exercise influence in the process of government policy decision by putting together with a specific political party or political force.

① The Declaration includes various complicated issues and various elements, such as the amendment of the Media Act and the promotion of the fourth lecture development project, such as candlelights and dlelights, investigation into the persons concerned, and the death of the former president on labor force, etc. In accordance with ideology and spawnism, the expression of the Assembly and Demonstration includes a variety of diverse political interests, and thus, is clearly expressed on one side of the members of society as to specific cases where the extreme pros and cons between the members of society conflict with each other according to ideology and spawnism. As the present power belongs to the de facto non- democratic military regime, it constitutes alcoholic beverages asserting that the assembly and Demonstration of this case constitutes the underlying democratic spirit against it. Although it includes some educational policies such as expansion of educational welfare, democratization in school operation, guarantee of human rights, etc., this is not the main issue of the Assembly and Demonstration of this case.

After the death of the former President of the Republic of Korea (amended by May 23, 2009), the former president tried to pressure the government by carrying out the instant assembly and demonstration, and to prevent the government from carrying out policy decisions and activities opposing the former president, or to support the position of other political groups, including the opposition party against the government and/or party’s policy implementation.

(3) It is difficult to deny that the social interest in the recognition of the state of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Gu of the case of the Si of the case of the Gu of the case of the Gu of the Republic of Korea caused conflicts and confusion among other people.

5) Persons subject to the Assembly and Demonstration and persons ordered under Article 3 of the Teachers’ Labor Unions Act

A) As seen earlier, the instant national declaration was not voluntarily started from individual teachers, but was planned from the beginning to the very short time through the organization under the former and its subordinate organization. Considering that considerable of the teachers participating in the instant national declaration were members of the former and were directly related to the former, among the teachers who participated in the instant national declaration, and their presenters, means of announcement, and mediums were directly related to the latter, the instant national declaration was announced in the name of the teachers who signed the Assembly, not from the form of the former teachers but from the form of the latter. However, in light of the social norms, it should be deemed that the former teachers were a principal agent by using the organization and organization.

B) In addition, Article 3 of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations of Teachers prohibits political activities of the teachers' union itself, but the actual activities of the teachers' union should be conducted through the teachers' union, which is a member of the union, due to its nature. Therefore, the political activities prohibited by the Act should be naturally applied not only to the union members but also to the activities of the teachers' union members.

6)Indemarity

The act of the Plaintiff’s involvement in the assembly and demonstration of this case is a political activity prohibited under Article 3 of the Teachers’ Labor Unions Act, and thus, in violation of Article 3 of the Teachers’ Labor Unions Act, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(B) As to the violation of Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act (Prohibition of Collective Action)

1) Legislative intent and interpretation criteria under Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act

The main text of Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall engage in any collective activity for purposes other than public service." Here, "collective activity for purposes other than public service" means any collective activity conducted by public officials for any purpose other than public service, and it does not mean any collective act that guarantees the freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association, the constitutional principle, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith under the State Public Officials Act, and the duty of care in good faith under the State Public Officials Act." It should be interpreted as "collective activity that may affect the duty of care for the purpose other than public service" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 203Do2960, Apr. 15, 2005; 2004Do5035, Oct. 15, 2004; 2004). It is reasonable to directly prohibit a teacher who performs an act of expression or collective harm to public service, such as expression of opinion or opinion of a public official, which directly violates the political neutrality of public official duty.

(ii) whether the act of the Plaintiff boiler constitutes a group activity other than official business.

A) Comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, the planning and promotion purpose of the first trial declaration, the timing and details thereof, the characteristics of teachers of elementary and secondary schools, the method of promotion and its influence, etc., the Plaintiffs’ act in collusion with other former and secondary school teachers in relation to the first trial declaration is ultimately an act of clarifying opposing political parties by collectively exercising the intent or critical influence of the government’s decision-making and enforcement of major policies with a clear political purpose or intent, and thus, it is an act of clarifying the political neutrality of teachers who are public officials and the trust of the people or the degree of direct risk to such infringement.

B) Furthermore, the second declaration does not directly deal with political issues alleged at the first declaration, but it criticizes the government's measures on the premise of the legitimacy of the first declaration. As such, in light of the fact that the contents of the second declaration, including the second declaration, which decided and carried out various scambling acts, such as the second declaration, are friendly on the premise of the legitimacy of the first assembly and seizure carried out by the former president and branch officers, it is reasonable to view that in the case of the executives of the second declaration and the former branch, including the plaintiffs, there was a clear political purpose and intent as to the promotion of the second declaration. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the acts leading the second declaration and the second declaration and the second declaration are likely to directly undermine the political neutrality of the public official.

3) Sub-decisions

In light of the above circumstances, each assembly and demonstration of this case goes beyond the present portion as a teacher who is a public official and goes against the public interest, and interferes with the public official’s performance of duties, or damages the essence of public duties, and thus, it constitutes a “collective act for purposes other than public duties” prohibited under Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6388, Apr. 19, 201), and the plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(C) As to whether the State Public Officials Act has violated Articles 56, 57, and 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity, Uniforms and Dignity)

1) Whether Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act is violated

Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act provides that "All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes and perform in good faith." The plaintiffs' participation in the Assembly and Demonstration of this case violates Article 3 of the Teachers' Unions Act and Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, as seen earlier. As long as the plaintiffs violated the above Acts and subordinate statutes, they cannot be deemed as having faithfully performed their duties. Thus, this goes against Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act.

2) Whether Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act is violated

Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act provides, “A public official shall obey a superior’s free order in the course of performing his duties.” As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs received an order from the Defendant, his superior officer, to refrain from participating in the assembly or demonstration. After the First Declaration, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology made an accusation and a heavy disciplinary measure against the former officer. The Plaintiffs participated in the assembly or demonstration despite the above official order and the government’s invasion. Thus, it is clear that the Defendants constitute a violation of the above provision, since they participated in the assembly or demonstration.

3) Whether Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act is violated

Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act provides that "public officials shall not commit any act that is detrimental to their dignity and non-performance of their duties." The plaintiffs participated in the collective action of the former class group that is of a strong political character that is not permitted under the current law, thereby impairing the dignity of teachers.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' arguments are groundless.

(2) Regarding the adequacy of a disciplinary decision

The plaintiffs are actively engaged in political activities in violation of the current laws and regulations prepared to guarantee the political impartiality of education and actively engage in political activities. The full-time officer of the previous school was in charge of the promotion of the assembly and demonstration of this case, the plaintiffs' act does not have any adverse impact on the public official's work fairness and the trust of the people, and the plaintiff's most favorable circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs are reduced for three months in the case of plaintiff * * * * * * * 1 month of suspension from office against the plaintiff * * * the reduction of salary for the plaintiff * 3 months in the case of each disciplinary action against the plaintiff * the reduction of salary for three months, in light of the characteristics and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, and the purpose to achieve it by disciplinary action, etc., and it cannot be deemed that it was objectively unreasonable objectively and objectively unfair in light of the characteristics and nature of the plaintiffs' duties conducted by the plaintiffs and the purpose to achieve the discipline.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and all of them are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Soldiers (Presiding Judge)

Freeboard

Kim Sung-hwan

Relevant statutes

Constitution

Article 7

(1) A public official is a volunteer to all citizens and is responsible for all citizens.

(1) Status and political neutrality of public officials shall be guaranteed as prescribed by Acts.

Article 21

(1) All citizens shall enjoy freedom of the press and publication, and freedom of assembly and association.

Article 31

(1) All citizens shall have the right to receive equal education according to their abilities.

(4) Educational independence, speciality, political neutrality and autonomy of universities and colleges shall be guaranteed as prescribed by Act.

Article 33

(2) Workers who are public officials shall have the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining and the right to collective action only.

(c)

Article 37

(2) All freedom and rights of the people shall be necessary for national security, the maintenance of order or public welfare.

may be limited by law, and even if limited, the essential contents of the freedom and rights shall be infringed

shall not be detrimental.

The State Public Officials Act

Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity)

All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, and perform faithfully their duties.

Article 57 (Duty of Obedience)

A public official shall obey any official order of his superior officer in performing his/her duties.

Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity)

No public official shall commit any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is for his/her duties. Article 66 (Prohibition of Collective Activities)

(1) No public official shall engage in any collective activity for any labor campaign, or activities, other than public services.

any public official who is actually engaged in labor shall be excluded.

(2) Public officials who actually engage in labor under the proviso to paragraph (1) shall be limited to the National Assembly Regulations, Supreme Court Regulations

Rules, National Election Commission Regulations or Presidential Decree shall be prescribed.

(2) If a public official under the proviso to paragraph (1) who has joined a trade union intends to transfer his/her business to another union

shall obtain the permission of the Minister.

(1) Any necessary condition may be attached to the permission referred to in paragraph (3).

Framework Act on Education

Article 6 (Educational Neutrality)

(1) Education shall be administered to secure the purpose of education per se, and political, fact-finding, or political, or fact-finding.

It shall not be used as a tool for propagating personal prejudice.

Article 14 (School Teachers)

(4) School teachers shall guide or instigate students for the purpose of supporting or opposing any particular political party or faction.

shall not be eligible.

Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions (Amended by Act No. 10132, Mar. 17, 2010)

(2)

Article 1 (Purpose)

Notwithstanding Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 55 of the Private School Act, the purpose of this Act is to prescribe matters concerning the establishment of teachers' trade unions under the proviso to Article 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and to prescribe special cases concerning teachers in the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which are applicable to teachers.

No political activity shall be engaged in any political activity.

A person shall be appointed.

(1) The representative of a trade union shall not engage in any and all political activities, such as the wages, working conditions, and welfare of the trade union or its members.

The Minister of Education, Science and Technology, the superintendent of education of each City/Do, or the founder of each private school;

A private school founder and operator of the private school shall be entitled to negotiate and sign a collective agreement.

A union shall comply with negotiations throughout the country or on a City/Do unit. Finally, the negotiation shall be conducted.