1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 11, 2019, the Defendant issued a public notice (No. 2019-340 ( October 11, 2019; hereinafter “the first public notice of this case”) regarding a competitive test for selecting candidates for appointment of public and secondary school teachers [including specialized health history counseling and nutrition special] in Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter “the instant examination”), which includes general principles of conducting the examination as shown in the attached Form, matters of attention to applicants, etc. (No. 2019-340 (No. 11, 2019); hereinafter “the instant first public notice”), and the Plaintiff is an examinee who applied for the instant examination.

B. On November 15, 2019, the Defendant made a public announcement (No. 2019-402, Nov. 15, 2019; hereinafter “the second public announcement of this case”) that includes the following: (a) the description of the applicant’s attention as indicated in the attached Form; and (b) the measures to be taken with respect to unlawful acts.

C. On November 23, 2019, the Defendant conducted the instant test. On the back of the Plaintiff’s test report (hereinafter “instant test report”), the supervising officer, who was undergoing the said test, found that the “Regrh’s theory of teaching teaching subjects,” which is the subject of the first test, was printed on the back of the test report (hereinafter “instant test report”).

On February 28, 2020, the Defendant: (a) viewed that the Plaintiff’s act of printing the examination table of this case using the back page containing the examination-related contents as above (hereinafter “instant problematic act”) constituted a fraudulent act; and (b) selected an external attorney as a presiding judge and held a hearing on the Plaintiff.

E. After compiling the opinions of the supervising officer, the department in charge, the opinions of the presider, etc., the defendant decided the plaintiff as an illegal act on February 26, 202, on the ground that the plaintiff's act of the problem of this case constitutes "an act of having or using unlawful data" based on Article 11-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 11-1 of the Public Educational Officials Act, and the first and second public announcements (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the public announcements of this case"), and then the examination becomes null and void, and it is in accordance with the Public Educational Officials Act for five years from