beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 25, 2002, Plaintiff A was appointed as the Jeju University Educational Affairs Book, and transferred from January 1, 2016 to C University on September 9, 2003, and was in charge of the support and festival-related duties for students while working in the student welfare department at C University. Plaintiff B was appointed as a Grade-I working staff at the Busan Fisheries University on September 26, 1989, and was in charge of the affairs related to the support and festival of students. From October 1, 2015 to the student welfare department at C University.
B. From May 16, 2016 to the 19th day of the same month, C University total student conference planned and held “D”, which is a spring festival, and as part of the above festival event, there was planned performance of E to be invited from May 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant performance”).
C. At around 22:30 on May 16, 2016, F, G: (a) felled into the top-class space of the first floor of the H of C University, approximately 50 meters away from the stage to view the instant performance; (b) after completion of the performance, he felled into the second underground floor of the 7m high depth of 10cm from the wind at which the lighting windows, which is the plastic material, are located, and F suffered from the injury, such as the rupture, rupture, rupture, etc. of the rupture, which requires treatment of at least 14 weeks; and (c) G suffered from the injury of the rupture, such as the rupture, rupture, rupture, etc., of the rup
(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.
On January 20, 2017, the Ministry of Education issued a reprimand against the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Plaintiffs violated the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act due to grounds for disciplinary action, and the Defendant issued a reprimand against the Plaintiffs on February 8, 2017.
(hereinafter “instant disposition.” Since at least 1,000 visitors are anticipated to view the instant performance, the Plaintiffs were negligent in failing to report the instant performance to the head of the Gu, etc. pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Public Performance Act.