logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2014.11.12 2014나2364
해임처분무효확인 등
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a school juristic person located in D High School in SP and the plaintiff was employed as a full-time lecturer at E University on October 1, 1983 and an associate professor at the same university on March 1, 2006 through July 31, 2008, and was employed as a part-time lecturer at F University from March 1, 2006 to July 31, 2008, and was appointed as a full-time teacher at D High School on August 1, 2008, and was dismissed from office on January 29, 2010.

B. On July 31, 2008, the defendant board of directors appointed the plaintiff as a teacher of D High School from August 1, 2008 to July 31, 2012, and made a resolution to appoint the plaintiff as a teacher of D High School, and at the same time the plaintiff did not obtain the certificate of a middle school principal. 2) The plaintiff was appointed as a teacher of D High School on August 1, 2008, and the defendant reported the fact of appointment of the plaintiff to the Superintendent of D High School under Article 54(1) of the Private School Act.

C. On August 12, 2008, Jeonnam-do Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul-do Office of Education") returned the defendant's appointment document on behalf of the principal of a private school on the ground that "the principal of a school is required to appoint the principal of a school, and the principal intends to appoint the principal of a school on behalf of the principal due to his disease, long-term business trip, etc., he shall first appoint the person holding the principal of a school among the non- incumbent and incumbent persons, and the assistant principal shall be appointed as the principal acting as the principal without the person holding the principal's certificate. Therefore, it cannot be recognized that the appointment of the plaintiff without the principal's certificate is made as the principal acting as the principal of a school, even though the defendant-affiliated D High School must appoint the person holding the principal's certificate as the principal of a school and promote the normalization of school management and curriculum, and the appointment of the principal of a person with the qualification as the principal is made by the defendant's board of directors on the ground that he is appointed as the principal.

arrow