[Judgment of the court below]

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Intervenor (Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 27, 2007

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap4523 decided September 27, 2006

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The decision made by the Defendant on December 28, 2005 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) shall be revoked regarding the claim for revocation of revocation of refusal to re-election.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons to be explained in this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for partial dismissal as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

(a) 8-10 pages "A 2, 3, 16, 17" among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "A 2, 3, 16, 17, 20 Evidence";

(b) Of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “B 1-3 evidence” in the 9th 12 parallel of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “A evidence, B 1-3 evidence.”

(c) Of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, from 13 up to 14 pages shall be as follows:

According to the records of the court of first instance, Non-party 1 presented a statement to the effect that he denies the fact that Non-party 1 submitted a written application against the question of the 2580's conductor, who had the MaBC implications, but Non-party 1 presented a statement to the president in the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office 2003-type No. 57329, which the Plaintiff brought a complaint against Non-party 1 as a crime of defamation, and Non-party 1 testified to the effect that the Plaintiff was present as a witness in the case of defamation against Non-Party 1, which was brought by the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap58221, the Plaintiff presented a statement to the effect that he did not consider the contents of the proposal as a "written application" at the time.

⑤ In the above case No. 2006Gahap58221, Non-party 2 and Non-party 3 testified to the same effect as stated in the Defendant’s Committee on behalf of them, that the Plaintiff directly appeared to have been witnessed to satisfing the students’ shoulder.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 23-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 7-6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

[Insufficient Evidence] Gap 23-4

D. Of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the 15th 14th 15 of the 14th 15 statement “in light of the content of the testimony, the relationship between the plaintiff and the witness, the relationship between the plaintiff and the witness, Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, etc. attending a civil lawsuit between the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor and testified for the same purpose as the testimony of Nonparty 2 and 3 at the Defendant Committee.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)