logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.08.25 2016구합54886
교원소청심사위원회결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details and details of the decision;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is an educational foundation that was established on February 24, 1964 and operates C High School (hereinafter “instant school”).

On March 1, 2004, the Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher of the instant school and served as a Korean language teacher.

B. On October 20, 2015, the Intervenor rendered disciplinary action against the Plaintiff under Article 61 of the Private School Act on the ground that “the following grounds are recognized and it violates Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 55 of the Private School Act” against the Plaintiff.

(이하 ‘이 사건 징계’라고 하고, 징계 사유는 그 순번에 따라 ‘① 징계사유’와 같이 칭한다). 원고는, ① 2013. 6. 하순경 D(당시 이 사건 학교의 국어 교사)의 부탁을 받고, 이 사건 학교 교무실에서 D에게 정답이 표시된 3학년 1학기 기말고사 국어시험 문제지를 건넸다.

② 2013. 9. 하순경 D의 부탁을 받고, 이 사건 학교 교무실에서 D에게 정답이 표시된 3학년 2학기 중간고사 국어시험 문제지를 건넸다.

(3) Any person who was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10 million due to such misconduct.

C. On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for an examination of the instant disciplinary action, and the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on February 3, 2016 on the ground that “B, but not recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, ① the determination of disciplinary action is appropriate solely on the grounds for disciplinary action.”

(hereinafter “instant decision”). [The ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 3-5 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Considering that the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff committed the misconduct upon D’s request, and there is no amount of money received therefrom, that the Plaintiff’s misconduct did not affect the students’ sexual performance, and that the Plaintiff has faithfully worked in the school of this case and has no record of disciplinary action or criminal punishment, the instant disciplinary action shall be taken.

arrow