1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing restrictions on retirement benefits and retirement allowances against the Plaintiff on May 29, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

The Plaintiff was appointed as a public educational official belonging to the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education on March 1, 2001 and transferred to the Gwangju Metropolitan City Office of Education on March 1, 2003 through City exchanges on March 1, 2003, and served as a special class teacher from March 1, 201 to B elementary school.

The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on March 28, 2016, following a resolution of the Gwangju Metropolitan City General Disciplinary Committee for Public Educational Officials (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Committee”).

(2) The Plaintiff filed a claim for retirement benefits and retirement allowances with the Defendant on May 13, 2016, and the Defendant rendered a decision to pay retirement benefits and retirement allowances after reducing the amount of retirement benefits and retirement allowances by 1/4 pursuant to Article 64(1)3 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 55(1)2(b) and (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on May 19, 2016, on the ground that “the Plaintiff is dismissed from office in a monetary corruption” on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s request for retirement benefits and retirement allowances was made under Article 64(1)3 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 55(1)2(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(2) Article 64(1)3 of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall be exempted from the grounds for disciplinary action at the time of the instant disciplinary action” and Article 64(1)3 of the same Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall be exempted from the grounds for disciplinary action at the time of the instant disciplinary action.” However, according to the instant disciplinary resolution, the instant disciplinary committee may recognize all the grounds for disciplinary action and determine the dismissal of the Plaintiff.” The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disciplinary action does not constitute the grounds for disciplinary action, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s portion of the money, valuables, entertainment, and embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds is not the main grounds for disciplinary action, but also constitutes a serious misconduct to the extent that the Plaintiff is dismissed.”