▲ The above picture is not directly related to the content of the article.


A professor who was dismissed for negligence in preparing for college non-face-to-face classes lost the appeal suit. 



Today (16th), the 13th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Judge Park Jeong-dae) announced that the plaintiff lost the judgment in the first trial of the dismissal cancellation lawsuit filed by an associate professor A at a university in Busan against the school.



Earlier, the student union of a certain university in Busan filed a complaint saying, 'Professor A's non-face-to-face class content, who lectured three major subjects in the first semester of 2020, is poor.'



The school that received the complaint conducted a fact-finding investigation, and as a result, it was confirmed that Professor A did not properly prepare for class. 



Professor A uploaded the class materials for three subjects to the online lecture library on March 27, the 4th week of his class, and did not upload the class materials. 



In addition, he was found to have violated the duty to prohibit concurrent positions, such as obtaining a for-profit business registration without permission in 2014. 



In the end, Professor A was dismissed from the university in September 2020 for violating his duty of integrity, prohibition of concurrent positions, and duty to maintain dignity.



Professor A, dissatisfied with the disposition, requested an appeal review with the Teacher Appeals Review Committee, but the Teacher Appeals Review Committee rejected the request in December 2020 saying "the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized".



In the end, Professor A filed an administrative lawsuit against the university. 



He said, "I acknowledge that the sudden non-face-to-face class has caused inconvenience to the students," he said, "but the class materials were created through many years of department classes and are suitable for understanding the class." To judge that a class method or material is wrong is an infringement of the right to teach.”



Regarding the violation of the duty to concurrently hold office, he said, "I received verbal permission from the president of the past to hold a concurrent office," he said. .



However, the court of first instance did not accept Professor A's argument.



The court of first instance said, "In the unprecedented disaster situation of Corona 19, students' right to learn face-to-face is severely limited. We did not provide faithful instructional materials for a considerable period of time,” he pointed out.



In addition, "Mr. A received a warning from the school for negligence in class even in 2018, and is seriously responsible for the negligence in class given that the recent class evaluation is also at the bottom." I judged.

Keywords: