[1] Whether the application for a request for a disciplinary decision by the director of the Do Office of Education who is a state public official belonging to the Office of Education, and its subordinate officers is an agency delegation (affirmative)

[2] Whether the duties of guidance and supervision by the superintendent of the Office of Education on the preparation of school life records conducted by the head of public and private school are delegated to the superintendent of the Office of Education of City/Do (affirmative

[3] Where the Superintendent of an Office of Education does not establish precedents, etc. on the nature of guidance and supervision over the preparation of school life records, and it is found that such affairs were autonomous affairs and subsequently delegated state affairs, whether specific performance of affairs existing constitutes grounds for disciplinary action (negative)

[4] Whether a public official belonging to the Office of Education of a City/Do subject to audit bears the duty to cooperate in audit activities of the Minister of Education or a person performing audit activities (affirmative), and whether a public official belonging to the Office of Education of a City/Do in violation of such legal obligations constitutes grounds for disciplinary action (affirmative)

[5] In a case where the Superintendent of an Office of Education fails to perform state delegated duties without “special circumstances”, whether the requirement under Article 170(1) of the Local Autonomy Act satisfies the requirement that “any person is obviously negligent in managing and executing state delegated duties” (affirmative)

[1] In light of the nature of disciplinary affairs of public educational officials, the form and content of the regulations of the Public Educational Officials Act concerning the delegation of authority, etc., disciplinary action against the director general of the Do Office of Education, the director general of the Do Office of Education, school supervisors, and school inspectors, who are public officials, is the State affairs, and the application for a request for disciplinary decision, which is a part thereof, constitutes State affairs. Therefore, the application for a request for disciplinary decision made to the director general of the Do Office of Education

[2] According to the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Enforcement Decree of each Act, where a student transfers his/her school life records between Cities/Dos or between national schools and public and private schools, the systematic and uniform management of school life records is required. Where a middle student enters a high school located in another City/Do, the school life records are reflected in high school entrance screening, and high school students’ school life records are utilized as school entrance screening data for universities under the Defendant’s instruction and supervision. Thus, the affairs related to the preparation of school life records conducted by the head of each school shall be conducted uniformly for the overall interest of the people.

Therefore, the affairs of guidance and supervision by a supervisory office on the preparation of school life records that require uniform nationwide shall be managed uniformly for the benefit of all citizens. Therefore, the affairs of guidance and supervision by the superintendent of education on the preparation of school life records conducted by the head of a public or private school are the affairs of guidance and supervision by the Minister of Education on the preparation of school life records conducted by the head of a national school, and are delegated to a City/Do superintendent of education.

[3] Guidance and supervision of the superintendent of education on the preparation of school life records shall be deemed to fall under the delegated state affairs. However, considering the legislative intent, etc. of an objection against the disposition of revocation as stipulated in Article 169 of the Local Autonomy Act, the Superintendent of an Office of Education did not establish precedents, theories, precedents, etc. as to the nature of guidance and supervision affairs, and performed affairs by deeming them as autonomous affairs in the absence of such precedents, theories, and precedents, etc., and later, in judicial proceedings, the mere fact that the affairs were revealed to be the delegated state affairs cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for disciplinary action immediately

[4] In light of Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act on Audit Procedures, Articles 167, 171, and 171-2 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 11(1)1, 2, (3), 12(1), (2), and (3) of the former Administrative Audit Regulations on Local Governments (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24425, Mar. 23, 2013), public officials of the City/Do Office of Education affiliated with the Office of Education subject to audit bears the duty to cooperate with the Minister of Education or the persons performing audit activities. Accordingly, the act of a person to be disciplined refusing audit in violation of such legal obligations constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.

[5] According to Article 3 of the Local Education Autonomy Act and Article 170(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Education may order the superintendent of education to perform matters to be performed, where the superintendent of education clearly neglects the management and execution of state delegated affairs under the duties of the superintendent of education.

In this context, the requirement is premised on the establishment of an obligation to manage and execute state delegated affairs. The superintendent of education is in principle to perform state delegated affairs belonging to his/her duties, and thus, the superintendent of education satisfies the requirement when he/she fails to perform the obligation without any special circumstances. In this context, special circumstances refer to de facto disability, such as disability grounds under statutes that cannot manage and execute state delegated affairs, lack of financial capacity or conditions of local governments, shortage of human resources, etc., and the circumstance where the superintendent of education fails to take different opinions from the Minister of Education on whether he/she is obligated to manage and execute state delegated affairs does not constitute such circumstance.

[1] Article 3 of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Articles 9 and 102 of the Local Autonomy Act / [2] Articles 9(4) and 17 of the Framework Act on Education, Articles 6, 25, and 47(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 82 of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 34(2) of the Higher Education Act, Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Higher Education Act, Article 3 of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Articles 9 and 102 of the Local Autonomy Act / [3] Articles 9(4) and 17 of the Framework Act on Education, Articles 6, 47(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 82 of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 35 of the Higher Education Act, Article 34(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 37(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 25(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act / [Article 17(2) of the Local Government Act

[1] [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 2012Da213 Decided February 27, 2014 (Gong2014Sang, 744) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2012Da183 decided February 27, 2014 (Gong2014Sang, 739) / [5] Supreme Court Decision 2009Da206 Decided June 27, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 1355)

The Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do (Attorney Jeon Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant)

(2) The Minister of Education (Attorney Kim Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 11, 2015

1. On April 10, 2013, the part concerning the application for a request for a disciplinary decision made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff under the duty performance order issued by the Plaintiff on April 10, 2013 is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The Defendant’s order to perform duties on April 10, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details and the summary of the order to perform the duties;

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to 16 (Additional Number omitted), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the whole purport of pleadings.

(a) Amendment of the defendant's school records and management guidelines;

1) On January 27, 2012, the Defendant: (a) recorded the measures to be taken against the aggressor student of the Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 17(1) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in School; and (b) revised the Guidelines for the Preparation and Management of School Records by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology to provide guidance and use it as data for school guidance and higher level of education; and (c) revised the Guidelines for the Management of

A) Method of entering school life records

In the special engineer column of “school matters”, the transfer to another school, expulsion from school, and the special engineer column of “routing situation” shall include community service, special education completion or psychological treatment, suspension of attendance for not more than ten days, suspension of attendance at the “act characteristics and comprehensive opinions”, the prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation, and the service at school and the replacement of class at school, respectively.

(b) the preservation period of school life records;

Measures to be taken against aggressor students recorded in school records shall be preserved for five years after graduation, and high schools shall be preserved for ten years.

2) On June 29, 2012, the Defendant re-amended the “Guidelines for Preparation and Management of School Records” by Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Directive No. 257, and revised the preservation period of school records from 10 years to 5 years after graduation, as in the case of high schools, as in the case of elementary schools and middle schools.

(b) Guidance on the Plaintiff’s school life records;

On July 9, 2012, the National Human Rights Commission held a total policy recommendation to create a culture for human rights-friendly school, and the content includes the part that “the school violence record should be amended to prevent the school violence record from being subject to any other human rights violations, such as the introduction of the deletion review system or the interim deletion system before graduation.”

Accordingly, on August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff sent to elementary, middle, high, and special schools within the jurisdiction of elementary, middle, and special schools an official letter stating that “I will give the following guidance on the subject and method of entry in school life records as a result of the measures taken by the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence.” The details of the Plaintiff’s guidance are as follows (hereinafter “the guidance on the subject and method of entry

1) Object to be recorded: A student who has received a final and conclusive judgment in a criminal case;

(ii) Method of recording: output of school life records, and the relevant content;

(iii) Management: The head of human rights department, assistant principal or principal of a school shall be managed at the expense of outside, and discard if the student has graduated from the school;

4) Disclosure: In principle, it cannot be provided to the outside without the consent of parents and students themselves.

(c) corrective orders and ex officio revocation orders;

On August 21, 2012, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2012, (1) immediately cancel the subject and method of the entry of school records announced to schools at the Office of Education, and (2) to enter the measures against school violence students in school records pursuant to statutes in school and the Office of Education by August 22, 2012, to submit them to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology by August 23, 2012.

As the Plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective order, on August 24, 2012, the Defendant revoked ex officio the Plaintiff’s guidance on the written guidelines of this case on the grounds that the guidance on the written guidelines of this case violated Article 25 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 25 of the Rules on the Preparation and Management of School Life Records, and the Guidelines for the Preparation and Management of School Records.

(d)request to conduct and take a specific audit;

(i)the primary specific audit and prior performance order;

From August 23, 2012 to September 13, 2012, the Defendant conducted a specific audit with respect to the office of education in Jeollabuk-do. The Defendant pointed out that ① handling affairs related to the entry of school violence aggressor students' school records, ② unfair handling of official documents related to the entry of school violence aggressor students' school records, ③ refusing to enter school violence aggressors' school records, ④ refusing to submit audit data, etc., and on October 16, 2012, the Defendant demanded the relevant public official to take measures such as requesting a request for a disciplinary decision or request for a disciplinary decision.

As the Plaintiff did not comply with the above disposition, on November 22, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to perform his duties on November 27, 2012 under Article 170 of the Local Autonomy Act to apply for a request for a disciplinary decision with respect to a person in a disciplinary case under the jurisdiction of the Special Disciplinary Committee by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

(ii) conduct secondary specific audits;

From December 5, 2012 to December 14, 2012, the Defendant conducted a secondary audit on the Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do to point out the following matters:

A) Unfair handling of affairs related to school life records of aggressor students in school violence

(1) Details of the disposition: Institutional warning and heavy disciplinary action.

(2) Objects of heavy disciplinary action: Non-party 1 school inspector, non-party 2 of the school inspector, school inspector, non-party 3 of the school inspector, school inspector and non-party 4 of the school inspector.

B) Refusal to record school violence students' school records

(1) Details of the disposition: Heavy disciplinary measure and warning.

(2) Objects subject to heavy disciplinary action: 15 persons including Nonparty 5, etc., and 12 persons including Nonparty 6, etc., principal of ○○ High School and principal of △ High School.

3. Object of warning: 60 persons, including Nonparty 7, etc. of the assistant principal of ○○ High School.

C) Refusal of audit;

(1) Refusal to audit by the Jeollabuk-do Office of Education.

(1) Warning: Institutional warning and heavy disciplinary action;

(w) Subject to the Sub-Disciplinary Action: Non-party 8 of the Human Health Director, Non-party 9 of the Human Nature Department, Non-party 10 of the Human Nature Health Department, Non-party 1 of the school inspector, non-party 2 of the school inspector, non-party 3 of the school inspector, non-party 3 of the school inspector, school education and school inspector non-party 4

(2) Refusal (specific contents omitted) of inspection by high schools.

(iii) request for disposition following the second specific audit;

On January 11, 2013, the Defendant issued a warning disposition to the Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do in accordance with the second specific audit result, and submitted the result of other dispositions to the Office of Education. On the other hand, the Defendant requested a general disciplinary committee established in the Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do to make a disciplinary resolution within one month from the principal, etc. subject to the general disciplinary committee under the jurisdiction of the General Disciplinary Committee among the persons subject to disciplinary action of the Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do, and the disciplinary action is taken. ② With respect to “the head of the office of education, the director of the office of education, the director of the office of education, and its subordinate” who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Special Disciplinary Committee of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, the Defendant applied for a disciplinary decision by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

E. Details of the instant order to perform duties

1) On February 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant for a request for a disposition under the second specific audit, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on February 28, 2013. In addition, on April 10, 2013, the Defendant issued an order to perform duties of this case to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the result of the second specific audit related to the entry of school violence school records, the head of the Office of Education, the director general of the Office of Education, the person subject to the jurisdiction of the Special Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials, and its subordinate, requested the Plaintiff to apply for a request for a disciplinary decision without delay pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, but on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply therewith, the Plaintiff did not comply with the request by the Ministry of Education for a disciplinary decision under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education pursuant to Article 170 of the Local Autonomy Act.”

2) Specific grounds for disciplinary action against the Director-General of the Educational Office of Education and its subordinate officers are as follows.

A) Unfair handling of affairs related to school life records of aggressor students in school violence

(1) Objects of heavy disciplinary action: The director general of the Education Office of Jeollabuk-do, school education subordinate thereto, school inspector or school inspector belonging thereto.

② On November 22, 2012, this part of the person to be disciplined did not transfer and implement three documents of the Ministry of Education to the Office of Education and schools without justifiable grounds, such as requesting the Ministry of Education to provide guidance on school violence measures to the schools within his/her jurisdiction on November 22, 2012; and (b) on December 4, 2012, 2012, through the “Guidance on School Violence Records (School Education-23360)” (hereinafter “School Education-2360), the Ministry of Education instructed 27 high schools within the jurisdiction of the Office of Education of Jeollabuk-do to ensure that the guidance on school violence measures should be complied with, regardless of any official text of the Ministry of Education, thereby preventing them from entering the school violence measures into school violence records.

B) Refusal of audit;

(1) Objects of heavy disciplinary action: The director general of the Education Office of Jeollabuk-do, a subordinate school education or human health division, school inspector or school inspector belonging thereto;

(2) Specific grounds for disciplinary action: This part of the persons subject to disciplinary action is subject to a secondary audit to verify the actual state of the measures taken against aggressor students in the Ministry of Education. On December 5, 2012, “the direction of the Superintendent of an Office of Education related to the audit of school violence” was sent to all schools within his/her jurisdiction through “the direction of the Superintendent of an Office of Education related to the audit of school violence” (school education-23462). The Ministry of Education requested the submission of audit data (the general officer-6152) such as the result of meetings of the Committee on Countermeasures against Violence in each School, the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School, and the submission of an audit data (the specific audit-1) from the specific audit group of the Ministry of Education on December 5, 2012; the submission of the audit data (the specific audit-1) and the submission of the audit data from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2, 2017; the Ministry of Education’s request for the submission of the audit data, such as the three-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-year officer officer officer.

2. Whether it falls under affairs subject to an order to perform duties;

According to Article 3 of the Local Education Autonomy Act and Article 170 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Education may order the superintendent of education to manage and execute the state affairs delegated by the superintendent of education, i.e. the state affairs delegated by the superintendent of education, etc.

The plaintiff asserts that the application for a request for a disciplinary decision against the director general of the Office of Education and the subordinate officers of the Office of Education is only autonomous affairs concerning the education and arts of a local government, and it cannot be viewed as the state affairs delegated by an agency, and thus, it does not constitute the affairs subject to the order of performance

However, in light of the nature of disciplinary affairs of public educational officials, and the form and content of the regulations of the Public Educational Officials Act concerning the delegation of authority, etc., it is reasonable to deem that disciplinary action against the director general of the Do Office of Education, the director general of the Do Office of Education, school inspector, and school inspector, who is a state public official, is the State’s affairs, and the application for a request for disciplinary decision, which is a part thereof, constitutes State affairs. Therefore, the application for a request for disciplinary decision made against the director general of the Do Office of Education, who is a state public official belonging to the Office of Education, the director general of the Do Office of Education, and its subordinate officials, shall be deemed as the delegated state affairs (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da213, Feb. 27, 2014). Accordingly

3. Whether an order to perform duties for the part of the application for a request for disciplinary decision on improper performance of duties concerning entry of aggressor students in school violence records is legitimate;

A. According to the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Enforcement Decree thereof, where a student transfers his/her school life records between Cities/Dos or between national schools and public and private schools, the systematic and uniform management of school life records is required. Where a middle student enters a high school located in another City/Do, the school life records shall be reflected in high school entrance screening, and the school life records of a high school student shall be used as entrance screening data of universities under the defendant's instruction and supervision. Thus, the affairs related to the preparation of school life records conducted by the principal of a school shall be conducted uniformly for the overall interest of the people.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the direction and supervision of the superintendent of education on the preparation of school life records conducted by the heads of public and private schools as the state affairs, like the guidance and supervision of the Minister of Education on the preparation of school life records conducted by the heads of national schools, as the state affairs are delegated to the superintendent of education.

B. Meanwhile, in this case, the Plaintiff, a superintendent of education, handled the affairs of guidance and supervision on the preparation of school life records by deeming them to be autonomous affairs, and the instant order for performance of duties is premised on the fact that the act of performing duties of the instant persons subject to disciplinary action, who assisted the management of such affairs, constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.

However, in determining whether affairs are autonomous affairs or delegated affairs by the head of a local government under statutes, the form and intent of the relevant statutes should be first considered in determining whether such affairs are autonomous affairs or delegated affairs by an agency. However, it should be determined by taking into account other matters such as whether the nature of the affairs requires a uniform operation across the nation, the burden of expenses related thereto, and who is the subject of final responsibility. As such, the division of affairs related to autonomous affairs and delegated affairs by an agency is not always clear

According to the interpretation of related Acts and subordinate statutes, the guidance and supervision of the superintendent of education on the preparation of school life records falls under the affairs of the delegated state. However, considering the legislative purport, etc. of an objection against the disposition of revocation as stipulated in Article 169 of the Local Autonomy Act, the Superintendent of an Office of Education, in the absence of precedents, theories, precedents, etc. as to the nature of the guidance and supervision affairs, deemed them autonomous affairs and carried out affairs after the fact that the affairs were found to be the affairs of the delegated state in judicial proceedings, cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for disciplinary action on the ground that the specific execution of the affairs conducted immediately after the fact that

This part of the persons subject to disciplinary action is a public educational official belonging to the Do Office of Education who is a superior to the Superintendent of the Office of Education, and shall perform his duties according to the direction and supervision of the superintendent of education, who is a superior, unless there are special circumstances such as the direction or order of the superintendent of education clearly unlawful and thus cannot be deemed to be an official order. In light of the legal nature of the guidance and supervision of the affairs related to the preparation of school life records of the superintendent of education, the legal nature of the defendant's guidance and supervision of the affairs related to the preparation of school life records of the superintendent of education, or the violation of the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution, etc., where it is unclear whether the guidelines of this case are invalid in violation of superior statutes, the legal nature of the affairs related to the preparation of school life records shall be deemed to be legal autonomous affairs, and the performance of duties related to the suspension of the implementation of the guidelines of this case shall be deemed to be a superior to the superintendent of education's duties

C. Thus, since the grounds for disciplinary action against the person to be disciplined are not recognized, the Plaintiff is not obligated to file a request for a disciplinary decision, and this part of the order is unlawful.

4. Whether an order for performance of duties concerning a request for a disciplinary decision on refusal of audit is lawful;

A. Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act provides that “All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes and perform their duties in good faith.” Furthermore, according to Articles 167, 171, and 171-2 of the Local Autonomy Act applied mutatis mutandis by Article 3 of the Local Education Autonomy Act, the Minister of Education’s audit of the Office of Education/City/Do Offices of Education is not limited to the delegated affairs of the agency, but also permitted violations of autonomous affairs. Furthermore, the Administrative Audit Regulations of the former local government (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2425, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Administrative Audit Regulations”) on the former local government established pursuant to delegation of Article 171-2(3) of the Local Autonomy Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2425, Mar. 23, 2013); (1) the Minister of Education’s authority to request attendance and answers; (2) the Minister of Education’s authority to present documents, books, and answers; and (3) the Minister’s authority to ask the Minister of Education to present documents and answers.

Considering the details, form, legislative intent, etc. of the relevant statutes concerning audit procedures, it is reasonable to interpret that a public official belonging to the Office of Education of a City/Do office of education subject to audit bears the duty to cooperate with the Minister of Education or an audit performer’s audit activities. Therefore, the act of a person subject to partial disciplinary action to refuse audit in violation of such statutory obligations ought to be deemed to constitute grounds for disciplinary action. On the other hand, even if a person subject to partial disciplinary action committed an act to refuse audit in violation of such statutory obligations, such an instruction should be deemed unlawful in violation of each provision of the administrative audit regulations as seen earlier, and thus,

B. In addition, according to Articles 18(1), 18(5), and 22 of the Administrative Audit Regulations, the Minister of Education shall determine a request for disciplinary action, etc. or measures to be taken within 60 days from the date on which the period for performing audit activities ends, and the superintendent of education shall, upon receipt of the notice of audit results, implement the measures of audit results within 60 days, and notify the Minister of Education of the results of the implementation

Inasmuch as it is determined that a refusal of audit by a person subject to partial disciplinary action constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, such as Article 78(1)1 of the State Public Officials Act, and otherwise, barring any justifiable reason to believe that the measures taken by the Plaintiff are not implemented, the Plaintiff is obligated to apply for a request for a disciplinary decision to the competent disciplinary committee on the ground that such refusal constitutes grounds for disciplinary action stipulated in Article 78(1)1, etc. of the State Public Officials Act. Furthermore, insofar as the grounds for disciplinary action against those subject to partial disciplinary action are recognized and the Superintendent’s obligation to apply for a disciplinary decision is recognized

As seen earlier, according to Article 3 of the Local Education Autonomy Act and Article 170(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, where the Superintendent of an Office of Education clearly neglects the management and execution of state delegated affairs belonging to his/her duties, the Minister of Education may order the superintendent of education to implement matters to be implemented.

Here, the requirement is premised on the establishment of an obligation to manage and execute state delegated affairs. Since the superintendent of education is a principle to perform state delegated affairs belonging to his/her duties, it shall be interpreted that the superintendent meets the requirement. Here, special circumstances refer to de facto disability, such as statutory disability, lack of financial capacity or condition of local governments, shortage of human resources, etc., which cannot be managed and executed by the State delegated affairs, and the situation where the superintendent of education has not performed such duties in a different view from the Minister of Education as to whether it is obligated to manage and execute specific state delegated affairs.

Therefore, insofar as it is difficult to deem that there is a statutory disability or de facto disability, such as an application for a request for a request for a decision on disciplinary action against a person subject to partial disciplinary action, the Plaintiff is clearly negligent in managing and executing State delegated affairs belonging to his/her duties.

C. Thus, since the grounds for disciplinary action against this part of the person to be disciplined are recognized and the plaintiff has the duty to request a disciplinary decision, this part of the order to perform his duties is legitimate.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the plaintiff's claim of this case partially accepted within the above scope of recognition, the remaining claims are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are borne by each party.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)