1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is appointed as a full-time lecturer at the Cschool Department on October 1, 2008, and is appointed as the same department and assistant professor on October 1, 2010.

1) On May 17, 2011, the Defendant was subject to a disciplinary measure to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant violated the duty to maintain dignity under Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 61 (Duty of Integrity), and 63 (Duty of Integrity) of the State Public Officials Act.

In full view of the allegations by a discipline accused person, the investigation by the Cultural Heritage Administration, the disciplinary committee and the statements of related persons present and testified, etc., it is recognized that a discipline accused person has continuously and repeatedly made statements of sexual harassment to a specific student and an unspecified student at the place of practical training and teaching research room, etc. for a period from January 2008 to 2010. The disciplinary action against a discipline accused person constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity and the duty to maintain good faith provided for in Articles 63 and 56 of the State Public Officials Act and the duty to make

A discipline accused person recognized that he/she was subject to an excessive amount of money and valuables from D with his/her will of an auditor on May 2009 on May 1, 2009. The above fact of receiving money and valuables is not determined to be quid pro quo, but is not directly or indirectly given or received any reward, donation, or entertainment in connection with his/her duties. Thus, a discipline accused person’s receiving an excessive amount of money and valuables from a student constitutes a violation of the duty of integrity under Article 61 of the State Public Officials Act and thus, a decision is made to “recompeti”.

B The General School Disciplinary Committee shall decide on the facts of suspicion of "sexual harassment", the first case for a request for disciplinary decision, and shall decide on the facts of suspicion of "the receipt of money and valuables", the second case for a request for disciplinary decision, as "reguination", and this case is the first step of "public official in special service", as it falls under the case where two or more misconducts not related to each other under Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree