1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 2 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning for this court to explain is as follows: (a) the second-class 4 through 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the last-class 9, 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where part of the judgment of the court

The defendant in the second sentence 10 of the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be considered as "the defendant and the co-defendant of the first instance court and the head of the office of education in Gyeonggi-do Office of Education".

The third to fifth shall be deleted from the judgment of the court of first instance.

The 3rd part of the judgment of the first instance court "Ma" in the 6th part of the judgment of the first instance shall be "Ra", the 8th part "ma", and the 10th part "g" in the 10th part "F", respectively.

The superintendent of the Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant superintendent of the Office of Education") in Part 8 of the third part of the judgment of the first instance shall be "the defendant".

In December 11, 2012, with respect to removal from the position of this case on December 11, 2012, Article 10 of the 3rd Judgment of the first instance court, "each" and "each" shall be deleted.

The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "Evidence 3 through 7 of the A" of the 13th part of the judgment of the court of first instance with "Evidence 4 through 7 of the A."

The 3th judgment of the first instance court shall be deleted from 4th to 5th.

The first instance court's decision No. 6 of the first instance court's decision "3.." shall be changed to "2."

2. Accordingly, 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, and it is obvious that the "request for money" in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is a clerical error in the "request against the superintendent of the office of education of Gyeonggi-do", and it is so decided as per Disposition.