1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiffs passed the selection of qualified trainees for advanced skills teachers conducted by the Gwangju Metropolitan City Office of Education in March 1, 201, and have served as advanced skills teachers at each affiliated school for a four-year term after being appointed to advanced skills teachers from March 1, 2012.

Around December 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs applied for a review for the re-election of a master teacher. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiffs are not suitable for the re-appointing of a master teacher on the grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the competence assessment standards (in-depth interviews). On December 17, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of such fact through the principal of the school to which the Plaintiffs belong (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiffs filed an objection against the instant disposition, but was dismissed, and on January 12, 2016, filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Teachers’ Appeal Committee, but the Teachers’ Appeal Committee dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim on March 23, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The defendant asserts that the defendant cannot seek revocation of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff A, B, E, H, and I, who are private school teachers, in the case of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff A, E, H, and I, since the defendant is not the person who has the authority to appoint the private school teachers.

In light of the above, unless the above plaintiffs were re-appointed as master teachers after being notified of the disposition of this case by the defendant and the above plaintiffs were re-appointed as master teachers, the disposition of this case is deemed to have caused direct legal changes in the above plaintiffs' legal status. Thus, the above plaintiffs, who are teachers of private schools, are legally interested in seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case as counterpart to the disposition of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

The review of the previous master teacher who deviatess from and abused the plaintiffs' discretionary power to claim the legitimacy of the disposition.