▲ The above picture is not directly related to the content of the article.
A professor at a private university, who was dismissed for negligence in attending classes, filed a lawsuit arguing that the disposition was unfair, but lost.
According to the legal community today (28th), the 2nd administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Shin Myung-hee) lost the plaintiff in the dismissal cancellation lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the Teacher Appeals Review Committee.
In November 2020, Professor A at a private university was dismissed for reasons such as being often late or missing class, and replacing the class with a video review.
In addition, it was investigated that he asked questions that were not taught as test questions, or asked questions on the spot saying he had lost the question.
The students who listened to Mr. A's class said, "The test starts at 1 o'clock and the test papers are not ready, so they told me to wait for an hour. He said he didn't think about it and said that even if the body is apart, the mind should be together."
In addition, it was confirmed that Mr. A did not provide any video class material from the 1st to the 8th weeks when the non-face-to-face class was being held to prevent the spread of Corona 19.
The students complained, "I did not upload the non-face-to-face class materials, so I made inquiries and they were scolded again."
Mr. A, who was dismissed due to this, later filed a claim for relief with the Teacher Appeals Review Committee, but when it was dismissed, he filed a lawsuit in May 2021.
The court judged that his dismissal was lawful, saying that Mr. A's actions also amounted to a violation of his duty of obedience as well as a violation of his duty of good faith due to his negligence.
He added, "Mr. A dropped out of school several times without prior notice." He also said, "It seems that Mr. A is also acknowledging the fact that class did not proceed properly because he missed or was late for some classes."
The court said, "The most basic role of the university, to ensure students' right to learning, was not performed at all," the court said. At the time half of the period had passed, we delivered 9 weeks of materials and assignments, which cannot be seen as a normal reinforcement for the missing class.”
In this regard, Mr. A claimed that he was physically and mentally debilitated due to an accident and had to take a break with the students' consent, and that he could not take a non-face-to-face class because the class platform was not operating properly. not accepted.