2019Guhap7526. Revocation of the request for disciplinary action against teachers and staff of the Slow High School

Plaintiff

Ulsan (Ulsan)

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

Ulsan Metropolitan City superintendent of education;

Attorney Park Jae-soo

August 20, 2020

September 24, 2020

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On May 8, 2019, the Defendant’s collection of excess work allowance and additional charges against the Plaintiff on his/her behalf and the disposition of heavy disciplinary action shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff is a person appointed as the head of the administrative office at Ski High School. (b) The Ministry of Education, from October 22, 2018 to November 2, 2018, sent to the Defendant a public notice of the title “request for a disposition as a result of the comprehensive audit of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City on April 30, 2019.” Accordingly, the Defendant registered the time of departure and retirement in the public notice of “the request for disciplinary action against a school juristic person(hereinafter “instant school juristic person”) to the president of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Office of Education(hereinafter “the instant school juristic person”), even though the Plaintiff applied for flexible work, even though the Skii High School applied for overtime work, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff overtime work allowance to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff received the full amount of overtime work allowance from his/her ordinary and continuous application for overtime work and used it for personal free.” (hereinafter “request for disciplinary action”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review on the request for disciplinary action, but the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for review on July 29, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the flexible work system is merely due to administrative error, and it is unreasonable to receive overtime work allowances, and there is no personal work during excess work hours. Therefore, the instant request for disciplinary action should be revoked in an unlawful manner by misunderstanding the facts and abusing discretionary authority.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

1) The defendant does not have standing to sue as the other party to the request for disciplinary action of this case, and the request for disciplinary action of this case does not constitute "disposition, etc." subject to appeal litigation.

2) We examine the case. The defendant has the authority to direct and supervise the school of this case and the school of this case operated by the school of this case (Article 4(1) of the Private School Act). Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has direct and supervisory authority over the school of this case including the plaintiff, and even according to the public notice on the request for disciplinary action of this case, the addressee is the chief director of the school of this case and is not the plaintiff. In full view of the fact that the plaintiff is not the plaintiff, it is obvious that the other party to the request for disciplinary action of

3) Therefore, since the Plaintiff, other than the other party to the request for disciplinary action of this case, is in a position of a third party in relation to the request for disciplinary action of this case, we examine whether there exists standing to sue

A) A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is eligible to file a revocation lawsuit, where the interests protected by law are infringed by the pertinent administrative disposition. The legal interests referred to in this context refer to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant administrative disposition-based laws and regulations, and the relevant laws and regulations, and does not include cases where a person has a factual and economic interest, such as general, indirect, and abstract interests commonly held by the general public as a result of public interest protection. In addition, the legal interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations are not protected by the express text of the relevant laws and regulations based on the relevant disposition, but are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations based on the relevant disposition, but are clearly protected by the relevant laws and regulations based on the relevant disposition-based legal interests clearly protected by the relevant laws and regulations, the grounds for the relevant disposition-based laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations without explicit provisions to protect the pertinent interests, and are interpreted to include the purpose of protecting the individual, specific, and specific interests directly and directly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201202Du14.

B) In addition to the purport of the entire argument as to the facts acknowledged earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to bear any obligation with respect to the above disciplinary action, apart from whether the Plaintiff bears the obligation to take any measure against the pertinent school juristic person due to the request for disciplinary action of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a direct and specific interest in relation to the part against the Plaintiff among the request for disciplinary action of this case.

4) Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is brought by a person who has no standing to sue. (Inasmuch as the Defendant’s assertion that he/she has no standing to sue among the main safety defense, the Defendant’s remaining arguments are not further determined).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and deputy judge

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judges Labor-Private Citizens