1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. After the appointment of Plaintiff A as a public educational official on March 1, 1981; Plaintiff B on June 15, 1984; Plaintiff C on March 1, 1987; Plaintiff D on September 1, 2001; and Plaintiff D on September 1, 2001, the Plaintiffs worked as teachers at the F Elementary School around 2010.

B. On October 21, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition of reprimand and imposition of a surcharge for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) on the grounds that the Plaintiffs violated Article 61 (Duty of Integrity) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 16 of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education’s Code of Conduct for Public Officials (hereinafter “instant Decree”).

The Plaintiffs, as public educational officials, did not violate the duty of integrity, regardless of whether they were on duty or not, sent KRW 100,000,000 to the principal G with the intention of providing drinking water to the students in the school room on May 10, 2010, immediately before the 18th Women's Epic Games (period: : 5-522 May 13, 2010; : Jeju-do) in which the F Elementary School Women's Epic was participating.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs violated Article 61 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of this case, which prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly receiving reward donation or entertainment in connection with their duties, and which prohibits public officials related to their duties from offering money, goods, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disciplinary action is lawful

A. The instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs’ assertion is unlawful for the following reasons, and its degree of illegality is significant and apparent, and thus invalid.

1) The Plaintiffs did not provide money and valuables to G, the principal of which is the principal, even if not, it was given under the name of the principal of G, not the principal of G, but the principal of G.