logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.10.16 2014구합10115
해임처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a state public official on September 1, 2002 and served as a visiting teacher at B high schools from March 1, 2009.

B. The Defendant on September 17, 2012 and the same year

9. At around 24, 26, a petition was received from the parents, students, and teachers of B High Schools working for the plaintiff, demanding disciplinary and personnel measures against the plaintiff, the same year.

9. From January 7 to October 18, 2012, a civil petition investigation was conducted three times, and on November 15, 2012, a resolution was requested against the Plaintiff. On December 20, 2012, a disciplinary committee was held and a resolution was passed to dismiss the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on January 7, 2013, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “existing dismissal disposition”).

C. On January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers against the existing dismissal disposition. On April 1, 2013, the Appeal Commission for Teachers decided to revoke the existing dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that there was a defect in the disciplinary procedure.

Then, the Defendant again conducted a civil petition investigation with the Plaintiff on June 15, 2013, and requested a resolution on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. On August 5, 2013, August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s disciplinary committee was held and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff by the said disciplinary committee. Accordingly, on October 2, 2013, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

E. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers. However, the said request was dismissed on January 15, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 16, 21, 22, 70, Eul evidence No. 1 and all pleadings.

arrow