1. The Defendant’s reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on February 23, 2016 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2001, the Plaintiff was newly appointed as a teacher at B High School under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education, and served as a teacher at C High School (hereinafter “C high school”) from March 1, 2006 to February 29, 2016, and served as a teacher at D High School from March 1, 2016 to March 1, 2016.

B. On December 15, 2015, the Defendant received a civil petition filed by the Plaintiff to the effect that he/she participated in the C/C recruitment system, conducted an audit on C/C from December 17, 2015 to December 21, 2015, and requested a minor disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff to the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education General Disciplinary Committee on Public Educational Officials on January 13, 2016.

C. On February 16, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan Office of Education decided to take a three-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for the following reasons, and accordingly, the Defendant was subject to a three-month disciplinary measure for the reduction of salary against the Plaintiff on February 23, 2016.

(C) On November 1, 2014, the Plaintiff posted a notice to the Office of Education stating that “in order for an external school principal to make a clerical error, the external school principal shall file a civil petition with the Office of Education,” and deleted the following day by stating that “The external school principal recruitment system is the length to which only C is required to go beyond C, employment rate is high, so that it is helpful for the children to do so,” but multiple parents are aware of the notice, thereby inducing parents to file a civil petition of 7 to 8 times with the Seoul Office of Education in a fair and transparent manner (hereinafter “instant initial disposition”). The Plaintiff’s above act as a public educational official violates Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act, and should maintain fair position in relation to the school principal recruitment system. However, the Plaintiff’s act as a public educational official should interfere with the school principal recruitment system, thereby impairing the fairness of the school principal.