(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.1.9. 선고 2018누44779 판결

This court's reasoning is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised parts

○ Amendment from 2 up to 4 pages below 3:

3) Pursuant to Article 70(3) of the State Public Officials Act, the Defendant was obligated to examine whether the dismissal of the Plaintiff is likely to be avoided through the transition assignment or change of position to another national university or the Ministry of Education. Nevertheless, since the Defendant neglected such duty and rendered the instant disposition, the instant disposition was unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion in violation of the principle of proportionality.

4) Even if the transition to B University, a national university, constitutes “the abolition of the position system and the fixed number,” the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of Article 20 of the Decree on the Appointment of Educational Officials.

5) The instant disposition is against the principle of the protection of trust, and the instant disposition is unlawful since it is against the principle of the equality, since it is against the principle of the protection of trust, and it is deemed that there was no case of dismissal by authority in the case of employees of B University, and it is against the principle of the equality.

○ 4 6 6 to 7 15 males as follows:

"C. Determination"

1) Article 31(6) of the Constitution provides that "the basic matters concerning the status of teachers shall be determined by the Act." Article 56(1) main sentence of the Private School Act, Article 43(2) of the Educational Officials Act, and Article 6(1)3 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status provide that "no teacher shall be subject to any unfavorable disposition against his/her will, such as temporary retirement or dismissal from office, without any reason prescribed by a sentence, disciplinary action or law," thereby guaranteeing the status of teachers. Articles 53(3)4 and 57(3) of the Educational Officials Act and Article 70(1)3 of the State Public Officials Act provide that "when a teacher is closed from office or excessive from office due to the abolition, etc. of a school, department, or faculty," and Article 70(3) of the State Public Officials Act provides that "when a public official is removed from office or a public official due to a disciplinary action or dismissal from office." Article 70(3) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 62(3) of the Local Public Officials Act provide that the public official should be dismissed.

Comprehensively taking account of the relevant provisions, in the case of a teacher who is a State public official, the State that is the subject of appointment of a teacher even if the teacher is closed due to the abolition of a school, department, or faculty, shall sufficiently examine whether the dismissal of the teacher is likely to be avoided or to minimize the number of dismissed persons by issuing or converting the teacher into another public school or another department, faculty, etc. of the relevant school, or other departments, faculty, etc. In such a case, the State that is the subject of appointment of a teacher requires measures to relieve any particular defect as much as possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da66071, Mar. 13, 2008; 2015Da21554, Jan. 12, 2017; 2015Da60726, Jul. 18, 2017).

2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10, and 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the overall purport of pleadings, even if the conversion of Eul’s national university constitutes “the title and the opening and closing of the fixed number of staff as stipulated in Article 70(1)3 of the State Public Officials Act”, it is reasonable to deem the instant disposition to be unlawful on the ground that the Defendant, who is obligated to guarantee the status of the teachers who are state public officials, did not sufficiently examine whether the Plaintiff is likely to avoid dismissal, such as the issuance of a new position, conversion, placement, etc., and did not have any possibility of avoiding dismissal, by examining the Plaintiff as the criteria for dismissal such as performance of duties or job performance, etc., and without any remedy, the instant disposition is deemed unlawful. Therefore, without considering the remaining allegations of the Plaintiff, the instant disposition ought to

◎ 교육부 직권면직 심사위원회(이하 '심사위원회'라 한다)는 2016. 12. 8. C법에 근거하여 B대학교 법인화 당시 공무원으로 남은 교원 5명(원고 포함)의 직권면직 여부를 심사하면서 ① 국립대학법인 B대학교 타 학과로의 이동은 B대학교 법인화에 따른 교원의 신분변동에 관한 사항이어서 불가능하고, ② 국립대학법인 B대학교 교직원으로의 신규채용은 교원 본인이 거부하였으며, ③ 다른 국립대학에 관하여는 교육공무원법 제12조5)의 특별채용 대상으로 볼 여지는 있으나 이는 예외적인 채용이므로 위법 가능성이 있을 뿐만 아니라 대학 교원의 임용권은 총장에게 있으므로 교육부가 채용을 강제하는 것은 곤란하다고 보아 면직 회피 또는 면직 대상자를 최소화하는 것이 불가능하고, 따라서 임용형태 및 기간을 기준으로 면직 여부를 결정하는 것이 타당하다고 판단하였다.

◎ 이에 피고는 2016. 12. 26. 원고를 포함한 직권면직 대상자 5명의 직권면 직심사결과를 토대로 최종적으로 5명 모두를 직권면직하는 것으로 결정하였는데 그들의 상세는 다음 표와 같다.

A person shall be appointed.

◎ 원고는 1980년 B대학교 수의학과에 입학한 이래 영국 H 신경과학 대학원에서 석사학위를, 영국 I대학에서 시각신경과학 박사학위를 취득한 후 2000년 B대학교 수의학과 조교수로 임용되어 이 사건 처분 시까지 뇌과학분야의 전문가로서 16년 이상 B대학교 조교수 및 부교수로 재직하였고, B대학교 자연과학대학 뇌과학전공 협동과정, B대학교 인문대학 인지과학전공 협동과정 교수로 참여하였으며, 뇌과학과 관련하여 10여 편의 논문을 작성 · 발표하였고, 그 중 'J'는 30회 이상, 'K'는 560회 이상 인용되었다. 원고의 기본 전공 분야는 'L'6)로서 국내에 전문가가 1, 2인밖에 없는데, 원고는 동물들이 어떻게 물건의 위치, 속도를 파악하고 움직이는지 그 원리를 밝혀 이를 바탕으로 차세대 핵심분야인 자율주행을 위한 인공지능개발에 공학적인 방법과는 다른 방법으로 접근하려고 한다. 한편 원고는 재직 중 징계처분을 받은 사실도 없다.

① The Plaintiff, while in office as a faculty member of B University, performed educational affairs, such as the director of B, the director of the Laboratory Research Resources Institute, the director of the several libraries, and the director of the foreign cooperative headquarters. In contact with foreign universities and research institutes, the Plaintiff entered into a number of MOU for joint research and cooperation. The details of the Plaintiff’s administrative affairs and the details of the conclusion of MOU are as follows

A person shall be appointed.

In addition, in 2006, the Plaintiff received support from the Seoul Office of Education, and directed the research to enable the Plaintiff to participate in U, and the above students received special benefits from U.S.

◎ 이와 같은 원고의 학력 및 경력에 비추어 원고는 교육부나 교육부 산하 관련 기관 또는 다른 국립대학교, 연구소 등에서 교수직, 연구직, 교육행정직 등을 수행할 수 있는 능력을 갖추고 있고, 약간의 전문교육 또는 적응 기간을 거쳐 주어진 업무를 충분히 수행할 수 있었을 것으로 보인다.

◎ 교육부는 3개의 '실', 4개의 '국', 10개의 '관', 49개의 '과'로 조직이 세분화되어 있고(별지 2 참조), 이 사건 처분 당시에도 큰 차이가 없었을 것으로 보인다. 앞서 본 원고의 교육 및 행정 경력을 고려하면, 원고는 교육부 내 고등교육정책과, 국립대학정책과, 직업교육정책과, 산학협력정책과, 미래교육기획과(융합교육팀) 등 교육부 내의 다양한 조직에서 그 역량과 경험을 발휘할 수 있었을 것으로 보인다(그뿐만 아니라 원고는 장학관이나 교육연구관 등의 고위직이 아니어도 교육부 소속기관의 임기제 교수요원 혹은 그보다 하위 직급인 행정사무관, 기록연구관, 행정주사, 행정주사보 등의 직급에서도 충분히 업무를 수행할 수 있다고 하고 있다).

In addition, in light of Articles 37(1) and 38(1)8 of the former Organization of the Ministry of Education and its affiliated agencies (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28730, Mar. 30, 2018), the Defendant appears to be able to add up to 3% the fixed number of the Ministry of Education and its affiliated agencies through the Ministry of Education Ordinance of the Ministry of Education through the Ministry of Education. However, there was 5 persons subject to ex officio dismissal following the enforcement of the C Act, and 3 persons other than the Plaintiff were in excess of retirement age for 2 months, 2 months, and 2 years and 1 others for 2 years and 8 months. In light of the fact that the Defendant was finally dismissed, it is not deemed that it would be difficult for the Defendant to specially increase or make it impossible for the Defendant to give some of the

◎ 그럼에도 피고는 이 사건 처분 당시 면직 회피 가능성과 관련하여 국립대학법인 B대학교의 다른 학과 또는 다른 국립대학 교원으로의 전환 가능성만을 심사하였을 뿐 교육부 소속 파견 공무원인 원고에 대하여 피고가 임용할 수 있거나 임용에 실질적으로 영향을 미칠 수 있는 교육부 또는 교육부 산하 관련 기관 등에 복귀하여 근무할 가능성에 관하여 전혀 검토하지 아니하였고(국가공무원법 제32조의4 제2항은 "파견권자는 파견 사유가 소멸하거나 파견 목적이 달성될 가망이 없으면 그 공무원을 지체 없이 원래의 소속기관에 복귀시켜야 한다"고 규정하고 있기도 하다), 만연히 면직 회피 가능성이 없다고 보아 업무실적 · 직무수행능력 등을 고려하지 아니한 채 임용형태 및 기간만을 면직기준으로 하여 면직 여부를 결정하였으며, 별다른 하자가 없는 교원을 가급적 구제하는 조치를 취하지 아니하였다.]

0. To revise "attached Form 1" in attached Form 1 to "attached Form 1"

○ 14 Added Form 2 of this Judgment after the 14th page

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim will be accepted on the ground of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the first instance, which different conclusions, is unfair, it is revoked, and the disposition of this case is unlawful, and thus revoked.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge, associate judge

Judges Park Jae-woo

Judges Gamburh

Note tin

1) The Plaintiff stated the date of disposition on December 28, 2016 in the written application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim, but appears to be a clerical error (see evidence A 3).

2) Article 43 (Respect of Educational Authority and Guarantee of One’s Status)

(1) Educational authority shall be respected, and teachers shall be free from unjust interference that might influence their special positions and status.

No public educational official shall be demoted, temporarily laid off, or dismissed against his/her will without a sentence, disciplinary action, or other grounds prescribed by this Act.

3) Article 6 (Guarantee of Teachers’ Status, etc.)

(1) No teacher shall be suspended from office, demoted, or dismissed against his/her will without any conviction, disciplinary action, or legal grounds.

4) Article 53 (Relation with State Public Officials Act)

The alteration and abolition of the organization of office under Article 70 (1) 3 of the State Public Officials Act and the alteration of the organization under Article 73-4 (1) of the same Act shall be deemed to include the abolition of a school, department, or faculty under Article 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Article 2 of the Higher Education Act (excluding public universities).

(v) Article 12 (Special Employment);

(1) Any of the following persons may be specially employed, as prescribed by Presidential Decree:

1. Where a retired public educational official is appointed as a public educational official in a position equivalent to the position in which he/she has held at the time of retirement within two years from the date he/she retires due to any reason referred to in Article 70 (1) 3, , or , or where a retired public official is appointed as a public educational official in a position equivalent to the position in which he/she has held office as a State public official

6) The pure language is to identify how animals can learn objects and to inform how they move.

(vii) Article 37 (Fixed Number of Public Officials in Charge of Education);

(1) The prescribed number of public officials to be placed in the Ministry of Education shall be as specified in attached Table 1: Provided, That where necessary, the prescribed number of public officials may be separately determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education within the extent not exceeding three percent of

8) Article 38 (Number of Public Officials Assigned to Affiliated Institutions)

(1) The prescribed number of public officials assigned to affiliated agencies (excluding temporary organizations under Article 17-3 (1) of the General Rules on the Organization and Quota of National International Education Centers and Administrative Agencies; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) shall be as specified in attached Table 2: Provided, That the prescribed number of public officials assigned to affiliated agencies of the Ministry of Education may be separately determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education within the extent not exceeding three