재임용거부처분취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs of the Gu Office are the Plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs passed the selection examination for advanced skills teachers conducted by the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education in March 1, 2011, and served as advanced skills teachers at each affiliated high school for a period of four years from March 1, 2012.
B. The Plaintiffs are re-examination for the reappointment of advanced skills teachers conducted by the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education on November 2015 (hereinafter “instant re-examination”).
(3) On December 22, 2015, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiffs are not re-appointed as master teachers due to the following reasons, and notified the Plaintiffs of such fact through the high school principal to which the Defendants belong.
(hereinafter) Each of the above notifications is referred to as the “instant Disposition Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4,” and it is referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions,” and it is also referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions,” and it is not possible to cancel the disciplinary action against Plaintiff A E High School, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff B, Plaintiff B, and Non-Party C, Plaintiff C, Non-Party C, Non-Party D, Non-Party D, Non-Party D, Non-Party D, Non-Party D, Non-Party D, Non-Party D, Non-Party 1,
Although the Plaintiffs filed an objection, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiffs’ request on January 12, 2016. The Plaintiffs re-requested on January 21, 2016, but the Teachers’ Appeal Committee dismissed the Plaintiffs’ request on April 7, 2016.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs work as a general teacher at each high school after the expiration of the working period as a master teacher.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 14 through 17, 19, 20 items, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant asserts that each of the dispositions of this case in this case cannot be subject to appeal litigation because it constitutes an act, arrangement, solicitation, and de facto notification within the administrative agency.