In a case where a professor Gap of the National University was dismissed on the ground that he violated his duty to maintain dignity as provided in Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act by taking money several times against students and using personal information of students for private purposes, such as borrowing money, etc., the case holding that the disposition is lawful.

In a case where the professor Gap of the National University borrowed money several times to students and used personal information of students for private purposes such as borrowing money, and was dismissed on the ground that he violated his duty to maintain dignity as provided in Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, the case holding that the disposition is lawful on the ground that, in light of the following: (a) university professors demand higher authenticity, morality, and ethics than ordinary workers; (b) they are obligated to maintain more strict dignity; and (c) Gap intentionally accessed several students who attended the course of study and received borrowed money on several occasions; and (d) they are very inappropriate behavior using the students’ psychological burden as professors who can exercise influence on students; and (b) it cannot be deemed that the disposition was objectively unjust as a disciplinary action against the misconduct, or excessively harshly harsh to the extent that it considerably lacks validity under the social norms, and thus deviates from and abused the scope of discretion.

Articles 56, 58, 63, and 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 2 [Attachment] and 5 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. on Public Educational Officials (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education No. 175, Apr. 9, 2015); Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

○ Head of ○ University

November 12, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff on May 2, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

On January 1, 1997, the Plaintiff was appointed as ○ University’s philosophy of humanities and full-time instructors at ○ University, a national university. On April 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was promoted as professor and worked as philosophicals and professors at ○ University’s Human University.

B. Defendant’s disciplinary action

On April 21, 2014, the Defendant demanded a disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff to the General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials at ○○ University. On May 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) and violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 58 (Prohibition of Deserting from Office), and 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

The Plaintiff promised not to repeat the same day due to an inappropriate monetary relationship with graduate school students in 2009. Although the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action by impairing the dignity of public educational officials and impairing the honor of universities due to similar incidents in 2010, the Plaintiff demanded the students, who applied for Chinese philosophical teaching courses in the first semester of 2014 using telephone and text, 30,000 won to whom the Plaintiff informed, and the students (six students) paid 1,50,000 won to 20,000 won to 30,000 won to 1,60,000 won to 1,000 won to 30,000 won to 1,000 won to 2,000 won to 2,000 won to 2,000,000 won to 2,000 won to 1,000,000 won to 2,000 won to 2,000 won to 2,00.

C. Plaintiff’s petition review request

On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers for the revocation of the instant disposition, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition review on August 26, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number, hereinafter the following) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff recognized his mistake and reflects his depth; (b) there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant misconduct, such as the Plaintiff’s family affairs and economic circumstances; and (c) the instant misconduct is not a serious disciplinary cause such as acceptance of bribe and embezzlement of public funds; and (d) there are no personal benefits acquired by the Plaintiff due to the instant misconduct, the instant disposition was abused and abused discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In the case of disciplinary action against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the person subject to disciplinary action shall be placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary action as an exercise of discretionary authority has significantly lost validity under the social norms, it may be deemed unlawful. If a disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary action should be determined by taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the reason for the disciplinary action, the administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, the criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc., and it should be determined that the contents of the disciplinary action can be objectively and clearly deemed unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du13245, Oct. 11, 2012, etc.).

B. Determination

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the following circumstances are considered in full for the Plaintiff, including the circumstances leading to the Plaintiff’s instant misconduct, in light of the aforementioned facts, the evidence as seen earlier, and the evidence as well as the statements and images of Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 7 through 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it cannot be said that the instant disposition was a disciplinary action against the instant misconduct, and that it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff to the extent that it was objectively unfair or considerably unreasonable under the social norms.

① In the course of studying academic truth, university professors teach students at all times try to improve their character and qualities, to search the academic support and educational principles, and to educate students, which require higher authenticity, morality, and ethics than ordinary professionals. The injury to dignity bears a more strict duty to maintain dignity in that it is feared that such injury may undermine the people’s trust in the entire society of teachers as well as the individuals.

② The Plaintiff intentionally accessed several students who participated in the course of study and received money borrowed on several occasions. This appears to be very inappropriate behavior using the psychological burden of students as a professor’s status to exercise influence. From 2009, the Plaintiff promised to prevent recurrence to the Defendant by causing an inappropriate monetary problem with graduate students. On December 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed 4 million won from philosophical philosophy and graduate students A on four occasions on July 8, 2010, and did not repay it. The Plaintiff was subject to the Defendant’s reprimand on the ground that “The Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act by borrowing 767,00 won from philosophicals and graduate students on July 19, 2010,” and the Plaintiff’s reprimand continued to have violated the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act.

③ The Plaintiff appears to have fully repaid the loan to the students attending the first semester in 2014; however, the Nonparty cannot be deemed to have fully repaid the loan to the Nonparty, who is the students attending the first semester in 2013 (it is difficult to deem that the Nonparty was fully repaid the loan solely on the basis of the fact that the Nonparty issued a seizure and collection order to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s ○ University Credit Union.)

④ In relation to the process of borrowing money, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff lost property as a matter of family guarantee, and his children in the U.S. were forced to perform a sudden operation, and gave him/her money by telephone to the students.” However, the victimized students stated that “the Plaintiff was suffering from lebal disease,” “a hospital fee must be paid every day,” “a large number of students,” and “a large number of students are incurred from lebal disease” and “a large amount of money if a certain person is faced with lebal disease, such as lebal disease and lebal disease,” and do not coincide with the Plaintiff’s assertion. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion on the background of borrowing money is true, it does not appear that there is a reason to consider the process of borrowing money to the students in charge of his/her house residing in the U.S...

⑤ On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff used the student’s personal information that he/she became aware of in the course of performing his/her duties for an improper purpose, and received a summary order of KRW 2 million from the Gwangju District Court for a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

④ The Plaintiff did not perform the time limit for compulsory performance under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act. In violation of Article 4 of the Rules on Public Officials’ Duties, the Plaintiff made an overseas trip for 323 days from September 201 to March 2014 without permission of the head of the agency. As seen above, the Plaintiff did not seem to have faithfully performed the duties of lectures and research, which are the principal duties of professors during the recent several years, and in light of the fact that the number of students was 0, except for the subjects of two semesters in 2012 and 2 semesters in 2013 and 2 semesters in 2013, among the 10 subjects established from January 201 to 2013, the Plaintiff does not seem to have made every effort to perform the said time limit.

7) According to the [Attachment Table] of Article 2 of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. on Public Educational Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, Apr. 9, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply), when considering the following: (a) during the instant misconduct, a student’s personal information constitutes a serious and intentional violation of the duty of good faith and other duty to maintain dignity; and (b) the dismissal or dismissal of each of the misconduct constitutes a serious and intentional violation; and (c) even if the remaining misconduct is not serious; and (d) even if the degree of such misconduct is not serious, the instant misconduct constitutes competition with two of the misconducts; and (e) the disciplinary committee may take a step more than the disciplinary action corresponding to the violation of the duty of the public educational official under Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Disciplinary Decree, which applies mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary action on the public educational official under Article 5(1) of the former Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. on Public Officials, it is difficult to view the instant

8) The Plaintiff’s wrongful act seriously undermines the public’s trust in public educational officials, and the public interest, such as the establishment of the public service discipline intended to achieve through the instant disposition, and the restoration of public trust in public educational officials, is less than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff may incur due to the instant disposition.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) Support for the settlement of long-standing persons