Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On March 1, 1984, the Plaintiff was newly employed as a teacher in a middle or high school in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education and served as an assistant principal from September 1, 2015 to B middle or high school (hereinafter “instant school”).

B. On September 26, 2016, the Defendant demanded a resolution of heavy disciplinary action against the Plaintiff to the General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials of the Seoul Metropolitan Office (hereinafter “the instant disciplinary committee”) of the Office of Education (hereinafter “instant disciplinary committee”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff retired from around 16:20 to 22:20 on July 25, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant day”) along with a fixed-term teacher C (hereinafter “victim”) who belongs to the instant school and provided meals to the victim and performed the following sexual speech and behavior (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

1) The Plaintiff stated to the victim that “I am good,” and “I am good,” and “I am good, I am less, kn if we am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.

3) The Plaintiff was able to see the victim’s sleep, and the victim’s grandchildren were sought. 4) The Plaintiff sent a picture to enable the victim to have the victim returned home at the Dju shop, and the Plaintiff was able to drink the victim until the victim’s home flick, and the victim was flicked with the taxi until the victim’s home flick, and the victim was able to drink the alcohol.

5 The Plaintiff stated to the victim that “in-house path. Hawd. Hawd. Hawd. Hawd.” was “in-house pawd.”

C. The instant Disciplinary Committee, on October 12, 2016, violated the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, as it committed the instant misconduct.