The court judged that the dismissal was justifiable for the director of a child welfare facility who threatened children under protection and tried to be admitted to a mental hospital.
The 11th Administrative Division of the Seoul High Court (Judges Han-Chang Cho, Hae-bin Park, and Jong-oh Shin) ruled that the plaintiff was defeated at the appeal trial for ``a suit for canceling the disposition of recommendations for severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal'' filed by A, the director of a child welfare facility in Gwangju, against the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. It was announced today (1st).
In January 2018, the Human Rights Commission's Committee on the Rights of the Child revealed that Mr. A continued to intimidate and abuse children through an ex officio investigation into whether or not Mr. A has violated the human rights of children.
Mr. A said to the children,
"If you want to live more here (don't report it), stay still" and "If you go out of here, I don't think there's anyone to look
at.
"
They abandoned their parenting responsibilities and temporarily returned home.
In particular, when
a student underwent double eyelid surgery without permission, he was forced to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital with a problem of'personal disorder', while another student who had troubled behavior such as smoking was admitted to a closed ward in a psychiatric hospital for about 6 months
Also revealed.
The Human Rights Commission recommended that the chairman of the social welfare corporation operating the facility be subject to severe disciplinary action, such as dismissal of Mr. A, who objected to this, and filed an administrative lawsuit.
Mr. A argued that "temporary return was an appropriate measure to protect other children from the child in question, and admission to (mental hospital) was determined through a meeting while searching for a treatment method suitable for symptoms of uncontrolled behavioral disorders and personality disorders." I did.
However, the first trial court did not accept Mr. A's claim.
The judge pointed out, "Although Mr. A is under the responsibility to prioritize the protection and rearing of children in facilities, he has acted contrary to the basic purpose of the Child Welfare Act," and said, "To prevent additional problems and fundamentally improve the facility operation He said, "The NHRCK's judgment that it needs measures such as dismissal cannot be considered remarkably unfair."
Mr. A appealed against the ruling, but the second trial court also said, "Mr. A was convicted of some child abuse in a criminal case. Despite being an educator who should protect children, the conduct of the students under his protection is somewhat excessive. I thought that the decision of the NHRCK was correct.
This is'News Pick'.
(Photo = Yonhap News)