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 March 1, 199, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a secondary middle school teacher on December 1, 2016, and transferred to an educational and research company on December 1, 2016. On March 1, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred to a bachelor’s degree and worked under C from that time.

B. On November 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) on September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff “from September 6, 2018.”

9.7. Around September 6, 2018, the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education attended as a person in charge of support of parents to the “D's parents policy council” organized by the Ministry of Education, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act by making sexual speech and behavior against the other party’s will, such as visiting twice the female victim’s arms belonging to the Ministry of Education who was seated on the side at a meeting place where some number of people attend, and making twice the buckbucks.

C. The Gyeonggi-do General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on November 30, 2018, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on December 7, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On December 28, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Appeal Commission for Teachers. However, on March 13, 2019, the said request was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under “sexual harassment” rather than “sexual assault,” and the degree of such disciplinary action is weak, and the Plaintiff’s act was conducted by the passage room, and thus, the criteria for disciplinary action under Article 2(1) and [Attachment] of the Rules on Disciplinary Measures on Public Educational Officials, Etc. are merely lower than demotion, and the Plaintiff was seriously killed for the victim by reflecting his/her mistake in depth, and the victim expressed his/her intent to the Plaintiff.