(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.07.20 2016구합83853

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.07.20 2016구합83853

해임처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the head of B elementary school (hereinafter referred to as “instant elementary school”) who was authorized by the Defendant and the head of the said school (hereinafter referred to as “head of the instant school”) on December 30, 2014 to November 30, 2015, with the period of contract from December 1, 2014 to November 30, 2015, and entered into a renewal contract with the period of contract from November 10, 2015 to November 30, 2016.

The content related to the instant case is as follows, among the camping-gu Coco-ownership contracts in the instant school (hereinafter “instant labor contract”) under a re-contract.

Article 9 (Cancellation of Contract) (1) The principal of the school of this case may terminate a contract of employment even if a co-owner falls under any of the following subparagraphs, or exclude him from the subject of a contract of renewal:

② If the principal of the instant case does not want to renew the contract, he/she shall notify the Plaintiff of the absence of intention to renew the contract 20 days prior to such renewal.

6. Where he/she causes social water by non-educational guidance methods, such as physical punishment, verbal abuse, etc.;

9. When there is no record of the nationwide sports competition for two years after the contract, the contract shall be renewed on an annual basis.

② The principal of the instant case is “paragraph (1)” in a labor contract under Article 9(2), but it is obvious that the Plaintiff is a clerical error in the “paragraph (2)”.

Unless it falls under any of the following subparagraphs, a renewal shall be made by respecting the intent of the plaintiff.

B. Around October 6, 2016, the principal of the instant case issued a warning to the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “the first warning”).

On September 29, 2016, the Plaintiff violated the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Human Rights of Students, Ordinance on Human Rights of Students and Ordinance on the Fine for Body for Students, on the ground that students are in danger of safety accidents without concentrating attention, and that students are in danger of safety accidents.

In addition, even though the participation of the local competition should be accompanied by the students, it shall be invested in a school other than the students.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2014.12.04 2013구합30315

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.02.14 2015가단117747

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.14 2014가합13158

-청주지방법원 2018.10.18 2016구합12115

-서울행정법원 2016.03.31 2015구합9841